Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29094313›Full record

SynthesisDrugs2017

Progress in Elucidating Biomarkers of Antidepressant Pharmacological Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Last 15 Years.

G Voegeli, M L Cléry-Melin, N Ramoz, P Gorwood

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drugs, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Changes in RNA expression levels during antidepressant treatment: a systematic review.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

4 authors.

G VoegeliCMME, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris Descartes, 100 rue de la Santé, 75014, Paris, France. g.voegeli@ch-sainte-anne.fr.
M L Cléry-MelinCMME, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris Descartes, 100 rue de la Santé, 75014, Paris, France.
N RamozCMME, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris Descartes, 100 rue de la Santé, 75014, Paris, France.
P GorwoodCMME, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris Descartes, 100 rue de la Santé, 75014, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1845-3676

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntidepressant drugs are widely prescribed, but response rates after 3 months are only around one-third, explaining the importance of the search of objectively measurable markers predicting positive treatment response. These markers are being developed in different fields, with different techniques, sample sizes, costs, and efficiency. It is therefore difficult to know which ones are the most promising.

objectiveOur purpose was to compute comparable (i.e., standardized) effect sizes, at study level but also at marker level, in order to conclude on the efficacy of each technique used and all analyzed markers.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database to gather all articles published since 2000 using objectively measurable markers to predict antidepressant response from five domains, namely cognition, electrophysiology, imaging, genetics, and transcriptomics/proteomics/epigenetics. A manual screening of the abstracts and the reference lists of these articles completed the search process.

resultsExecutive functioning, theta activity in the rostral Anterior Cingular Cortex (rACC), and polysomnographic sleep measures could be considered as belonging to the best objectively measured markers, with a combined d around 1 and at least four positive studies. For inter-category comparisons, the approaches that showed the highest effect sizes are, in descending order, imaging (combined d between 0.703 and 1.353), electrophysiology (0.294-1.138), cognition (0.929-1.022), proteins/nucleotides (0.520-1.18), and genetics (0.021-0.515).

conclusionMarkers of antidepressant treatment outcome are numerous, but with a discrepant level of accuracy. Many biomarkers and cognitions have sufficient predictive value (d ≥ 1) to be potentially useful for clinicians to predict outcome and personalize antidepressant treatment.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsBiomarkers, PharmacologicalDepressionHumansAntidepressive AgentsBiomarkers, Pharmacological

Identifiers

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.