Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28241180›Full record

ArticleJAMA psychiatry2017

Reevaluating the Efficacy and Predictability of Antidepressant Treatments: A Symptom Clustering Approach.

Adam M Chekroud, Ralitza Gueorguieva, Harlan M Krumholz, Madhukar H Trivedi, John H Krystal, Gregory McCarthy

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Dose-Related Effects of Adjunctive Ketamine in Taiwanese Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2017
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Learning Outcomes That Maximally Differentiate Psychiatric Treatments.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Adam M ChekroudDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut2Spring Health, New York City, New York3Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Ralitza GueorguievaDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Harlan M KrumholzCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut5Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut6Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Madhukar H TrivediDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Texas-Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.
John H KrystalDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Gregory McCarthyDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceDepressive severity is typically measured according to total scores on questionnaires that include a diverse range of symptoms despite convincing evidence that depression is not a unitary construct. When evaluated according to aggregate measurements, treatment efficacy is generally modest and differences in efficacy between antidepressant therapies are small.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of antidepressant treatments on empirically defined groups of symptoms and examine the replicability of these groups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsPatient-reported data on patients with depression from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial (n = 4039) were used to identify clusters of symptoms in a depressive symptom checklist. The findings were then replicated using the Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes (CO-MED) trial (n = 640). Mixed-effects regression analysis was then performed to determine whether observed symptom clusters have differential response trajectories using intent-to-treat data from both trials (n = 4706) along with 7 additional placebo and active-comparator phase 3 trials of duloxetine (n = 2515). Finally, outcomes for each cluster were estimated separately using machine-learning approaches. The study was conducted from October 28, 2014, to May 19, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Twelve items from the self-reported Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR) scale and 14 items from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale. Higher scores on the measures indicate greater severity of the symptoms.

resultsOf the 4706 patients included in the first analysis, 1722 (36.6%) were male; mean (SD) age was 41.2 (13.3) years. Of the 2515 patients included in the second analysis, 855 (34.0%) were male; mean age was 42.65 (12.17) years. Three symptom clusters in the QIDS-SR scale were identified at baseline in STAR*D. This 3-cluster solution was replicated in CO-MED and was similar for the HAM-D scale. Antidepressants in general (8 of 9 treatments) were more effective for core emotional symptoms than for sleep or atypical symptoms. Differences in efficacy between drugs were often greater than the difference in efficacy between treatments and placebo. For example, high-dose duloxetine outperformed escitalopram in treating core emotional symptoms (effect size, 2.3 HAM-D points during 8 weeks, 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.1; P < .001), but escitalopram was not significantly different from placebo (effect size, 0.03 HAM-D points; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.8; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Two common checklists used to measure depressive severity can produce statistically reliable clusters of symptoms. These clusters differ in their responsiveness to treatment both within and across different antidepressant medications. Selecting the best drug for a given cluster may have a bigger benefit than that gained by use of an active compound vs a placebo.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAffectAgedAntidepressive AgentsBupropionCitalopramCluster AnalysisDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationDuloxetine HydrochlorideFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMianserinAntidepressive AgentsBupropionCitalopramDuloxetine HydrochlorideMianserinMirtazapineVenlafaxine Hydrochloride

Identifiers

PMID28241180
PMCPMC5863470

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.