Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27589952›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2016

A systematic review of St. John's wort for major depressive disorder.

Eric A Apaydin, Alicia R Maher, Roberta Shanman, Marika S Booth, Jeremy N V Miles, Melony E Sorbero, Susanne Hempel

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
39.1field-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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 234 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. St John's Wort (Complementary medicine research · 2025
    Observational
  14. Documentary Analysis ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effect of St. John's Wort (Biomedicines · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric A ApaydinPardee RAND Graduate School, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA, 90407-2138, USA. eapaydin@rand.org.
Alicia R MaherAkasha Center for Integrative Medicine, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Roberta ShanmanRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Marika S BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Jeremy N V MilesRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Melony E SorberoRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Susanne HempelRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
RAND Corporation · USIntegra (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review evaluated St. John's wort (SJW) for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The objectives of this review are to (1) evaluate the efficacy and safety of SJW in adults with MDD compared to placebo and active comparator and (2) evaluate whether the effects vary by severity of MDD.

methodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Embase, AMED, MANTIS, Web of Science, and ICTRP and existing reviews to November 2014. Two independent reviewers screened the citations, abstracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of at least a 4-week administration of SJW on depression outcomes against placebo or active comparator in adults with MDD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and USPSTF criteria. Quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach.

resultsThirty-five studies examining 6993 patients met inclusion criteria; eight studies evaluated a hypericum extract that combined 0.3 % hypericin and 1-4 % hyperforin. The herb SJW was associated with more treatment responders than placebo (relative risk [RR] 1.53; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.19, 1.97; I(2) 79 %; 18 RCTs; N = 2922, moderate QoE; standardized mean differences [SMD] 0.49; CI 0.23, 0.74; 16 RCTs; I(2) 89 %, N = 2888, moderate QoE). Compared to antidepressants, SJW participants were less likely to experience adverse events (OR 0.67; CI 0.56, 0.81; 11 RCTs; moderate QoE) with no difference in treatment effectiveness (RR 1.01; CI 0.90, 1.14; 17 RCTs, I(2) 52 %, moderate QoE; SMD -0.03; CI -0.21, 0.15; 14 RCTs; I(2) 74 %; N = 2248, moderate QoE) in mild and moderate depression.

conclusionsSJW monotherapy for mild and moderate depression is superior to placebo in improving depression symptoms and not significantly different from antidepressant medication. However, evidence of heterogeneity and a lack of research on severe depression reduce the quality of the evidence. Adverse events reported in RCTs were comparable to placebo and fewer compared with antidepressants. However, assessments were limited due to poor reporting of adverse events and studies were not designed to assess rare events. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with caution. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016406 .

Indexed as

HypericumAntidepressive AgentsComplementary TherapiesHumansMajor Depressive DisorderTreatment OutcomeAntidepressive AgentsAntidepressantComplementary and alternative medicineHerbMajor depressive disorderMeta-analysisSt. John’s wortSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27589952
PMCPMC5010734
OpenAlexW2515067055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.