Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22971472›Full record

Trial reportPsychological medicine2013

A randomized, prospective pilot study of patient expectancy and antidepressant outcome.

B R Rutherford, S M Marcus, P Wang, J R Sneed, G Pelton, D Devanand, N Duan, S P Roose

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychological medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. LSD-assisted therapy in patients with anxiety: open-label prospective 12-month follow-up.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2024
    Trial
  5. Slowed Processing Speed Disrupts Patient Expectancy in Late Life Depression.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2021
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Longitudinal effects of rTMS on neuroplasticity in chronic treatment-resistant depression.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Psychiatrists' Attitudes Toward Non-Pharmacologic Factors Within the Context of Antidepressant Pharmacotherapy.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2016
    Article
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

8 authors.

B R RutherfordColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA. brr8@columbia.edu
S M Marcus
P Wang
J R Sneed
G Pelton
D Devanand
N Duan
S P Roose

Funding

Placebo Effects in the Treatment of Depression: Cognitive and Neural MechanismsK23MH085236 · NIMH · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI RUTHERFORD, BRET R · 2010 to 2014
$883k
Vascular depression: A distinct diagnostic entity?K23MH075006 · NIMH · QUEENS COLLEGE · PI SNEED, JOEL R. · 2006 to 2009
$628k
Vascular Depression in African Americans: Phenomenology, treatment, and course ofR21MH087774 · NIMH · QUEENS COLLEGE · PI SINGH, DEEPIKA, SNEED, JOEL R. · 2010 to 2011
$449k
NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH075006NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH085236NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH087774
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study is a randomized, prospective, investigation of the relationships between clinical trial design, patient expectancy and the outcome of treatment with antidepressant medication. Method Adult out-patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were randomized to either placebo-controlled (PC, 50% probability of receiving active medication) or comparator (COMP, 100% probability of receiving active medication) administration of antidepressant medication. Independent-samples t tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to determine whether the probability of receiving active medication influenced patient expectancy and to compare medication response in the PC v. COMP conditions. We also tested the correlations between baseline expectancy score and final improvement in depressive symptoms across study groups.

resultsSubjects randomized to the COMP condition reported greater expectancy of improvement compared to subjects in the PC condition (t = 2.60, df = 27, p = 0.015). There were no statistically significant differences in the analyses comparing antidepressant outcomes between subjects receiving medication in the COMP condition and those receiving medication in the PC condition. Higher baseline expectancy of improvement was correlated with lower final depression severity scores (r = 0.53, p = 0.021) and greater improvement in depressive symptoms over the course of the study (r = 0.44, p = 0.058).

conclusionsThe methods described represent a promising way of subjecting patient expectancy to scientific study. Expectancy of improvement is affected by the probability of receiving active antidepressant medication and seems to influence antidepressant response.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceAntidepressive AgentsFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPilot ProjectsPlacebo EffectProspective StudiesAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID22971472
PMCPMC3594112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.