ArticleRand health quarterly2016
St. John's Wort for Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.
Article in Rand health quarterly, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Depression and glioblastoma, complicated concomitant diseases: a systemic review of published literature.Neurosurgical review · 2020Pooled it
- Ethical considerations in the regulation and use of herbal medicines in the European Union.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Review
- Current Knowledge of the Antidepressant Activity of Chemical Compounds fromPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Essential Oils and Health.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2020Review
- Behavioral defects induced by chronic social defeat stress are protected byAnnals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Antidepressant-like effects of tetrahydroxystilbene glucoside in mice: Involvement of BDNF signaling cascade in the hippocampus.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RAND researchers conducted a systematic review that synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials of St. John's wort (SJW)-used adjunctively or as monotherapy-to provide estimates of its efficacy and safety in treating adults with major depressive disorder. Outcomes of interest included changes in depressive symptomatology, quality of life, and adverse effects. Efficacy meta-analyses used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. In total, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. There is moderate evidence, due to unexplained heterogeneity between studies, that depression improvement based on the number of treatment responders and depression scale scores favors SJW over placebo, and results are comparable to antidepressants. The existing evidence is based on studies testing SJW as monotherapy; there is a lack of evidence for SJW given as adjunct therapy to standard antidepressant therapy. We found no systematic difference between SJW extracts, but head-to-head trials are missing; LI 160 (0.3% hypericin, 1-4% hyperforin) was the extract with the greatest number of studies. Only two trials assessed quality of life. SJW adverse events reported in included trials were comparable to placebo, and were fewer compared with antidepressant medication; however, adverse event assessments were limited, and thus we have limited confidence in this conclusion.
Identifiers
28083422PMC5158227W2339862364What 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.