ArticleSystematic reviews2019
Network meta-analysis of randomised trials of pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, exercise and collaborative care interventions for depressive symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease: hybrid systematic review of systematic reviews protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping characteristics of mental skills training interventions in dance using TIDieR: a mixed-methods systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Substantial heterogeneity in trauma triage tool characteristic operationalization for identification of major trauma: a hybrid systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Interventions for Global Cognition in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a Psychoeducational Group Intervention Carried Out by Nurses for Patients with Depression and Physical Comorbidity in Primary Care: Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of StillenJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Characteristics of mental skills interventions in dance: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Different interventions for the treatment of patent ductus arteriosus in children: a protocol for a network meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Effective maNagement of depression among patients witH cANCEr (ENHANCE): a protocol for a hybrid systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of interventions for depressive symptoms.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Facilitators and barriers to stakeholder engagement in advance care planning for older adults in community settings: a hybrid systematic review protocol.HRB open research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDepression is common in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is associated with poorer outcomes and higher costs. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting depression, of various modalities (including pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and other approaches), have been conducted and summarised in pairwise meta-analytic reviews. However, no study has considered the cumulative evidence within a network, which can provide valuable indirect comparisons and information about the relative efficacy of interventions. Therefore, we will adopt a review of review methodology to develop a network meta-analysis (NMA) of depression interventions for depression in CAD.
methodsWe will search relevant databases from inception for systematic reviews of RCTs of depression treatments for people with CAD, supplementing this with comprehensive searches for recent or ongoing studies. We will extract data from and summarise characteristics of individual RCTs, including participants, study characteristics, outcome measures and adverse events. Cochrane risk of bias ratings will also be extracted or if not present will be conducted by the authors. RCTs that compare depression treatments (grouped as pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, combined pharmacological/psychotherapeutic, exercise, collaborative care) to placebo, usual care, waitlist control or attention controls, or directly in head-to-head comparisons, will be included. Primary outcomes will be the change in depressive symptoms (summarised with a standardised mean difference) and treatment acceptability (treatment discontinuation: % of people who withdrew). Secondary outcomes will include change in 6-month depression outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, health services use and adverse events. Secondary analyses will form further networks with individual anti-depressants and psychotherapies. We will use frequentist, random effects multivariate network meta-analysis to synthesise the evidence for depression intervention and to achieve a ranking of treatments, using Stata. Rankograms and surface under the cumulative ranking curves will be used for treatment ranking. Local and global methods will evaluate consistency. GRADE will be used to assess evidence quality for primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The present review will address uncertainties about the evidence in terms of depression management in CAD and may allow for a ranking of treatments, including providing important information for future research efforts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018108293.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.