ArticleBMJ open2016
Comparative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) in treating major depressive disorder: a protocol for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Puerarin ameliorated the behavioral deficits induced by chronic stress in rats.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Article
- Analysis of treatment patterns and persistence on branded and generic medications in major depressive disorder using retrospective claims data.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2016Article
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
introductionThere have been inconsistent findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the efficacies of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as the first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Besides inconsistencies among randomised controlled trials (RCTs), their risks of bias and evidence grading have seldom been evaluated in meta-analysis. This study aims to compare the efficacy of SSRIs by conducting a Bayesian network meta-analysis, which will be the most comprehensive evaluation of evidence to resolve the inconsistency among previous studies. METHODS AND ANALYSES: SSRIs including citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline and vilazodone have been selected. Systematic database searching and screening will be conducted for the RCTs on drug treatment of patients with MDD according to pre-specified search strategies and selection criteria. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, the US Food and Drug Administration Website, ClinicalTrial.gov and WHO Clinical Trials will be searched. Outcome data including Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) from eligible RCTs will be extracted. The outcomes will be analysed as ORs and mean differences under a random-effects model. A Bayesian network meta-analysis will be conducted with WinBUGS software, to compare the efficacies of SSRIs. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be performed to explain the study heterogeneity and evaluate the robustness of the results. Meta-regression analysis will be conducted to determine the possible factors affecting the efficacy outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool will be used to assess the RCT quality, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the strength of evidence from the meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required because this study includes neither confidential personal patient data nor interventions with patients. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015024879.
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.