Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29330217›Full record

SynthesisEvidence-based mental health2018

A systematic review of network meta-analyses for pharmacological treatment of common mental disorders.

Taryn Williams, Dan J Stein, Jonathan Ipser

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Evidence-based mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Neuropharmacology Potential of the Hydroalcoholic Extract from the Leaves ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023
    Article
  7. Valproate for acute mania.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Review
  8. Overprescribed Medications for US Adults: Four Major Examples.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2019
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Taryn WilliamsDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-2 Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Dan J SteinDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-2 Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Jonathan IpserDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-2 Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Groote Schuur Hospital · ZAUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

questionNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) of treatment efficacy across different pharmacological treatments help inform clinical decision-making, but their methodological quality may vary a lot depending also on the quality of the included primary studies. We therefore conducted a systematic review of NMAs of pharmacological treatment for common mental disorders in order to assess the methodological quality of these NMAs, and to relate study characteristics to the rankings of efficacy and tolerability. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched three databases for NMAs of pharmacological treatment used in major depression, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and specific phobia.Studies were appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research checklist of good research practices for indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies.

findingsTwenty NMAs were eligible for inclusion. The number of randomised controlled trials per NMA ranged from 11 to 234, and included between 801 to more than 26 000 participants. Overall, antidepressants were found to be efficacious and tolerable agents for several disorders based on rankings (45%) or statistical significance (55%). The majority of NMAs in this review adhered to guidelines by including a network diagram (70%), assessing consistency (75%), making use of a random effects model (75%), providing information on the model used to fit the data (75%) and adjusting for covariates (75%).

conclusionsThe 20 NMAs of depression and anxiety disorders, PTSD and/or OCD included in this review demonstrate some methodological strengths in comparison with the larger body of published NMAs for medical disorders, support current treatment guidelines and help inform clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnxiety DisordersHumansMajor Depressive DisorderNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicStress Disorders, Post-Traumaticadult psychiatryanxiety disordersmental health

Identifiers

PMID29330217
PMCPMC10283494
OpenAlexW2783062073

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.