Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 968 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 


 

 
     
    Advanced search
 

 
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1020    
    Printed27    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded218    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
 Table of Contents    
LETTER TO EDITOR  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 55  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 99
How to read a research paper: Ecological validity, apples, and oranges


Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore - 560 029, Karnataka, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication5-Jan-2013
 

How to cite this article:
Andrade C. How to read a research paper: Ecological validity, apples, and oranges. Indian J Psychiatry 2013;55:99

How to cite this URL:
Andrade C. How to read a research paper: Ecological validity, apples, and oranges. Indian J Psychiatry [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Dec 15];55:99. Available from: http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/text.asp?2013/55/1/99/105539


Sir,

As far as I could make out, Gupta [1] agrees with my view [2] that, when reading a research paper, it is important to consider the ecological validity of the findings. Gupta [1] suggests that the group not exposed to SSRIs may have contained depressed patients who were not advised SSRIS, or who did not want these medications. This suggestion is indeed correct but, rather than arguing against the apples vs. oranges scenario, it actually supports the distinction. This is because depressed patients, who accept antidepressants despite pregnancy, are likely to be more severely ill and, hence, more likely to suffer from illness-related confounds than patients who are not advised antidepressants or who do not accept these drugs.

Gupta's [1] assertion that alcoholism and depression are often entangled further supports the apples vs. oranges argument in patients who received SSRIs because the co-morbidity would make such patients more different from those who did not receive SSRIs. His contention that depressed women with alcoholism may not have received SSRIs finds no support from the data presented in the original paper. [3]

In his last point, Gupta [1] states that I postulated that psychological and material support received by women in India is quantitatively inferior to that received by women in the West; what I had stated was actually exactly the opposite, as evident in the final paragraph of my paper, [2] before the discussion section. Finally, Gupta [1] observes that my statement "underlying psychiatric condition (depression) was likely responsible for both SSRI prescription and alcohol use" does not capture the full essence of the possible scenarios that would affect the interpretation of results; however, he does not support his point with an illustration of possible scenarios that differ from or expand upon what I offered.

 
   References Top

1.Gupta N. Reading a research paper: The relevance of ecological validity. Indian J Psychiatry 2011;54:386-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Andrade C. How to read a research paper: Reading between and beyond the lines. Indian J Psychiatry 2011;53:362-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.Malm H, Artama M, Gissler M, Ritvanen A. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and risk for major congenital anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:111-20.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Chittaranjan Andrade
Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore - 560 029, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.105539

Rights and Permissions




 

Top