cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/42741188
James Walker, a professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Leeds, said the research had helped to “cut through the noise” regarding recent concerns regarding whether medications taken by mothers during pregnancy could affect their babies.
“The practical message is straightforward” Walker said. “Women with moderate or severe depression should not stop their antidepressants in pregnancy out of fear of causing autism or ADHD. Depression that goes untreated in pregnancy carries real risks of its own, for the mother, the pregnancy and for the developing baby, including a higher chance of premature birth, postnatal depression and difficulties bonding with the baby. For milder depression, talking therapies and other non-medication approaches are usually tried first, in line with current guidelines. As always, decisions in pregnancy are personal and should be made with a clinician who knows the woman’s history.”
meta studies are the highest standard of evidence. when peer-reviewed, looking at old evidence in new lights is precisely what they’re supposed to do, and there’s no problem with that unless there’s a response/refutal along those lines.
i haven’t seen them be at a higher frequency than usual either; in fact the latest data i could find shows it’s slowed down since 2019: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11795965/figure/cesm70010-fig-0002/ (note that the data cutoff is May 2024)
Have we even found a single major-journal systematic review that was made by AI yet?