Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22002839›Full record

SynthesisDer Nervenarzt2011

[Considerations about the efficacy of psychopharmacological drugs].

S Leucht, S Heres, J M Davis

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Der Nervenarzt, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

S LeuchtKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München, Deutschland. Stefan.Leucht@lrz.tum.de
S Heres
J M Davis
Technical University of Munich · DEUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current systematic reviews yielded relatively small efficacy effect sizes of different psychopharmacological agents compared to placebo. It seems that these effect sizes have decreased compared to earlier meta-analyses. We speculate about factors explaining the decrease of effect size such as lower methodological requirements for earlier randomised controlled trials, but in particular enormous methodological problems of current trials such as chronic patient populations, exclusion of severely ill patients by the protocols, sponsoring by the pharmaceutical industry and so-called professional patients. A few examples from general medicine are used to illustrate that the effect sizes of other medications are often also surprisingly small. Psychotropic drugs are efficacious, but they need to be prudently applied according to evidence-based criteria.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansMental DisordersOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychotropic DrugsTreatment OutcomePsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

PMID22002839
OpenAlexW46152353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.