ArticleCurrent neuropharmacology2015
From Randomized Controlled Trials of Antidepressant Drugs to the Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Evidence: Methodological Aspects Lead to Discrepant Findings.
Article in Current neuropharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Magnitude of the Placebo Response Across Treatment Modalities Used for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Item-based analysis of the effects of duloxetine in depression: a patient-level post hoc study.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Breakthroughs and challenges for generating brain network-based biomarkers of treatment response in depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta-research study of research waste.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- Article
- Placebo Effect in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Placebo Response and Placebo Responders in OCD: The Trend Over Time.Current neuropharmacology · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last decade, several meta-analytic studies employing different methodological approaches have had inconsistent conclusions regarding antidepressant efficacy. Herein, we aim to comment on methodological aspects that may have contributed to disparate findings. We initially discuss methodological inconsistencies and limitations related to the conduct of individual antidepressant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including differences in allocated samples, limitations of psychometric scales, possible explanations for the heightened placebo response rates in antidepressant RCTs across the past two decades as well as the reporting of conflicts of interest. In the second part of this article, we briefly describe the various meta-analyses techniques (e.g., simple random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis) and the application of these methods to synthesize evidence related to antidepressant efficacy. Recently published antidepressant metaanalyses often provide discrepant results and similar results often lead to different interpretations. Finally, we propose strategies to improve methodology considering real-world clinical scenarios.
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.