Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24647162›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies.

David Taylor, Anna Sparshatt, Seema Varma, Olubanke Olofinjana

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 57 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 335 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Effects ofNutrients · 2024
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. New agents and perspectives in the pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder.Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2021
    Review
  20. Circadian Mechanisms in Medicine.The New England journal of medicine · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David TaylorKing's College London, Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, London SE1 9NH, UK.
Anna Sparshatt
Seema Varma
Olubanke Olofinjana
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review published and unpublished efficacy studies of agomelatine in people with depression.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Literature search (Pubmed, Embase, Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory file for agomelatine, manufacturers of agomelatine (Servier). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Double blind randomised placebo and comparator controlled trials of agomelatine in depression with standard depression rating scales. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies were pooled by using a random effects model with DerSimonian and Laird weights for comparisons with placebo and comparator antidepressant. The primary efficacy measure (change in rating scale score) was summarised with standardised mean difference (SMD; a measure of effect size) and secondary outcome measures with relative risks. All results were presented with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity was explored by visual inspection of funnel plots and by the I(2) statistic. Moderators of effect were explored by meta-regression.

resultsWe identified 20 trials with 7460 participants meeting inclusion criteria (11 in the published literature, four from the European Medicines Agency file, and five from the manufacturer). Almost all studies used the 17 item Hamilton depression rating scale (score 0-50). Agomelatine was significantly more effective than placebo with an effect size (SMD) of 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.35) and relative risk of response 1.25 (1.11 to 1.4). Compared with other antidepressants, agomelatine showed equal efficacy (SMD 0.00, -0.09 to 0.10). Significant heterogeneity was uncovered in most analyses, though risk of bias was low. Published studies were more likely than unpublished studies to have results that suggested advantages for agomelatine.

conclusionsAgomelatine is an effective antidepressant with similar efficacy to standard antidepressants. Published trials generally had more favourable results than unpublished studies.

Indexed as

AcetamidesAntidepressive AgentsDepressionHumansNaphthalenesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAcetamidesagomelatineAntidepressive AgentsNaphthalenes

Identifiers

PMID24647162
PMCPMC3959623
OpenAlexW2068597369

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.