SynthesisPloS one2011
Antidepressant response in major depressive disorder: a meta-regression comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthesis methods used to combine observational studies and randomised trials in published meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Discontinuation of non-anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in interventional versus observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Is peritoneal drainage essential after pancreatic surgery?: A meta-analysis and systematic review.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Practical clinical trials in psychopharmacology: a systematic review.Journal of clinical psychopharmacology · 2015Pooled it
- Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions--a systematic review.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- From research to practice: Implementing an experimental home treatment model into routine mental health care.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2020Trial
- A randomised cross-over study assessing the "blue pyjama syndrome" in major depressive episode.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- Adjunctive Lanicemine (AZD6765) in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and History of Inadequate Response to Antidepressants: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2017Trial
- Article
- Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methodologies for Predicting the Non-Specific Treatment Response in Placebo Controlled Major Depressive Disorder Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Predictors of Changes in Depressive Symptoms with Major Depressive Disorder - A Naturalistic 6-month Follow-up Study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Article
- Ghrelin/GHSR System in Depressive Disorder: Pathologic Roles and Therapeutic Implications.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Desvenlafaxine in Korean Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A 6-month Postmarketing Surveillance Study.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022Article
- Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Agreement of treatment effects from observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone for covid-19: meta-epidemiological study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Is there an efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare response to antidepressants between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials. METHODS AND
findingsPublished and unpublished studies (from 1989 to 2009) were searched for by 2 reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, bibliographies and by mailing key organisations and researchers. RCTs and observational studies on fluoxetine or venlafaxine in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder reported in English, French or Spanish language were included in the main analysis. Studies including patients from a wider spectrum of depressive disorders (anxious depression, minor depressive episode, dysthymia) were added in a second analysis. The main outcome was the pre-/post-treatment difference on depression scales standardised to 100 (17-item or 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or Montgomery and Åsberg Rating Scale) in each study arm. A meta-regression was conducted to adjust the comparison between observational studies and RCTs on treatment type, study characteristics and average patient characteristics. 12 observational studies and 109 RCTs involving 6757 and 11035 patients in 12 and 149 arms were included in the main analysis. Meta-regression showed that the standardised treatment response in RCTs is greater by a magnitude of 4.59 (2.61 to 6.56). Study characteristics were related to standardised treatment response, positively (study duration, number of follow-up assessments, outpatients versus inpatients, per protocol analysis versus intention to treat analysis) or negatively (blinded design, placebo design). At patient level, response increased with baseline severity and decreased with age. Results of the second analysis were consistent with this.
conclusionsResponse to antidepressants is greater in RCTs than in observational studies. Observational studies should be considered as a necessary complement to RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.