Psychiatry researchers argue online surveys overstate how severe antidepressant withdrawal is, and say it is real
A 2019 editorial says the high withdrawal figures rest on self-selected online surveys, many by the same authors, and that blinded trials show modest effects. It agrees withdrawal is real and that some people have long-term problems.
Suggestive but preliminary. Not settled. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: An editorial by psychiatry researchers, several with declared pharmaceutical ties and one the journal's editor. It critiques survey methods but concedes long-term withdrawal exists and that trials are too short to measure it. It does not dispute that patients are often not told.
The methodological answer to the survey evidence behind the withdrawal and informed-consent rows in this library.
What the editorial argues
Jauhar, Hayes, Goodwin, Baldwin, Cowen and Nutt respond to Davies and Read's 2018 review, which put withdrawal at around 50% and severe in nearly half of cases. They write that "much of the evidence provided in Davies and Read's review comes from online surveys, many of which are their own." These "convenience sample surveys" cannot be extrapolated "to the general population of people receiving antidepressants." Two of the four surveys recruited people "self-identifying as experiencing withdrawal requiring treatment", and "by the very nature of the sampling method, this population is likely to report severe symptoms."
They point to blinded trials. Stopping paroxetine abruptly led to withdrawal symptoms in both arms, with a difference of 23% (95% CI 17 to 29%) attributable to the drug. Placebo can produce a "nocebo" response to dummy withdrawal, in some studies numerically higher than after the real drug. They also say new symptoms after stopping can be relapse rather than withdrawal. They argue antidepressants are not "addictive" under DSM-5.
The other direction
They do not deny withdrawal. "Whilst withdrawal effects do exist", trials show "modest, albeit heterogeneous" effects. They accept that "there are a number of people who have been taking antidepressants with longer-term symptoms of withdrawal which affect their functioning" that current evidence "is unable to address". They note that most treatment trials last 12 weeks or less, which says little about stopping after years. Nothing in the editorial disputes the survey finding that most people recall not being told about withdrawal when prescribed. It questions how common and severe withdrawal is, not whether the conversation happens.
Disclosures
Two authors declare no conflicts. Others declare pharmaceutical consulting, research funding or honoraria, and one is editor of the journal. All declared in the paper.
What this does not show
It is an editorial, not new data. Nothing here says anyone should stop, reduce or change an antidepressant on their own; any change is best planned with a prescriber.
Worth asking
What does withdrawal from my specific medicine tend to look like, and how would we tell it apart from relapse?
Source
Antidepressants, withdrawal, and addiction; where are we now? — Jauhar S, Hayes J, Goodwin GM, Baldwin DS, Cowen PJ, Nutt DJ (2019)
Reputable peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881119845799
DOI: 10.1177/0269881119845799
How this was scored
- Study design
- Expert opinion or commentary
- Funding
- Independently funded
- Published in
- Reputable peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- Yes
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published October 2, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "early signal". Suggestive but preliminary. Not settled. It scores 48 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: An editorial by psychiatry researchers, several with declared pharmaceutical ties and one the journal's editor. It critiques survey methods but concedes long-term withdrawal exists and that trials are too short to measure it. It does not dispute that patients are often not told. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Antidepressants, withdrawal, and addiction; where are we now? — Jauhar S, Hayes J, Goodwin GM, Baldwin DS, Cowen PJ, Nutt DJ (2019). Published in: Reputable peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1177/0269881119845799. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Expert opinion or commentary. Funding: Independently funded. Independence from the proponent is not recorded. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.