ReviewBMJ open2019
Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis.
Review in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 13 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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Control Group Outcomes in Trials of Psilocybin, SSRIs, or Esketamine for Depression: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Canadian guideline for the clinical management of high-risk drinking and alcohol use disorder.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Guideline
- Pooled it
- The relationship between dose and serotonin transporter occupancy of antidepressants-a systematic review.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Classic serotonergic psychedelics for mood and depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis of mood disorder patients and healthy participants.Psychopharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- On the treatment effect heterogeneity of antidepressants in major depression: A Bayesian meta-analysis and simulation study.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Individual response to antidepressants for depression in adults-a meta-analysis and simulation study.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Guidelines for the pharmacological acute treatment of major depression: conflicts with current evidence as demonstrated with the German S3-guidelines.BMC psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Patient perspectives and experiences with psilocybin treatment for treatment-resistant depression: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Effects of Aphrodite (an Herbal Compound) on SSRI-Induced Sexual Dysfunctions and Depression in Females with Major Depressive Disorder: Findings from a Randomized Clinical Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- Deceptive and open-label placebo effects in experimentally induced guilt: a randomized controlled trial in healthy subjects.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Public thresholds for antidepressant effectiveness and adverse drug reaction rates: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The nature of depression and the biomedical model: ten questions in search of an answer.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
- The assessment of suicidality in psychiatric trials: a protocol for a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Has the time come to stop using control groups in trials of psychosocial interventions?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Cipriani
designReanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Cipriani ANALYSIS: We used the Cochrane Handbook's risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses.
resultsSeveral methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Cipriani
conclusionsThe evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.
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.