trials by frequent clinical consultation, lowering the comparative performance of antidepressants. Critics agree that current clinical trials are poorly-designed, which limits the knowledge on antidepressant. More naturalistic studies, such as STAR*D, have produced results, which suggest that antidepressants may be less effective in clinical practice than in randomized controlled trials. Critics of antidepressants maintain that the superiority of antidepressants over placebo is the result of systemic flaws in clinical trials and the research literature. Trials conducted with industry involvement tend to produce more favorable results, and accordingly many of the trials included in meta-analyses are at high risk of bias. Additionally, meta-analyses co-authored by industry employees find more favorable results for antidepressants. The results of antidepressant trials are significantly more likely to be published if they are favorable, and unfavorable results are very often left unpublished or misreported, a phenomenon called publication bias or selective publication. Although this issue has diminished with time, it remains an obstacle to accurately assessing the efficacy of antidepressants. Misreporting of clinical trial outcomes and of serious adverse events, such as suicide, is common. Ghostwriting of antidepressant trials is widespread, a practice in which prominent researchers, or so-called key opinion leaders, attach their names to studies actually written by pharmaceutical company employees or consultants. A particular concern is that the psychoactive effects of antidepressants may lead to the unblinding of participants or researchers, enhancing the placebo effect and biasing results. Some have therefore maintained that antidepressants may only be active placebos. When these and other flaws in the research literature are not taken into account, meta-analyses may find inflated results on the basis of poor evidence. Critics contend that antidepressants have not been proven sufficiently effective by RCTs or in clinical practice and that the widespread use of antidepressants is not evidence-based. They also note that adverse effects, including withdrawal difficulties, are likely underreported, skewing clinicians' ability to make risk-benefit judgements. Accordingly, they believe antidepressants are overused, particularly for non-severe depression and conditions in which they are not indicated. Critics charge that the widespread use and public acceptance of antidepressants is the result of pharmaceutical advertising, research manipulation, and misinformation. Current mainstream psychiatric opinion recognizes the limitations of antidepressants but recommends their use in adults with more severe depression as a first-line treatment. Switching antidepressants The American Psychiatric Association 2000 Practice Guideline advises that where no response is achieved within the following six to eight