Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32939220›Full record

ReviewAnnals of general psychiatry2020

Alessandro Cuomo, Bruno Beccarini Crescenzi, Simone Bolognesi, Arianna Goracci, Despoina Koukouna, Rodolfo Rossi, Andrea Fagiolini

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of general psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alessandro CuomoDivision of Psychiatry, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Bruno Beccarini CrescenziDivision of Psychiatry, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Simone BolognesiDivision of Psychiatry, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Arianna GoracciDivision of Psychiatry, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Despoina KoukounaDivision of Psychiatry, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Rodolfo RossiDepartment of Systems Medicine, University of Rome tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Andrea FagioliniDivision of Psychiatry, Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5827-0853
University of Siena · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a recurrent illness with high rates of chronicity, treatment-resistance, and significant economic impact.

methodsA systematic search in Medline, Psychinfo, AMED, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was conducted for any reference recorded up to March 2020. Double-blind, randomised controlled trials, comparing the antidepressant efficacy of SAMe to placebo or/and to other antidepressants, were selected. Two authors evaluated each study independently and then, reconciled findings.

resultsEight trials, with a total of 11 arms and 1011 subjects, evaluating the efficacy of SAMe used as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy (512 individuals), were included in this review. The study duration ranged between 2 and 12 weeks and the daily dose of SAMe varied from 200 to 3200 mg. Five comparisons evaluated the differences between SAMe and placebo and SAMe resulted significantly better than placebo in three of these studies. Four comparisons evaluated the differences between SAMe and other antidepressants (imipramine or escitalopram) and showed no significant difference. One study showed that SAMe was significantly better than placebo in accelerating the response to imipramine from day 4 to day 12, but the mean scores were not statistically different at the day 14 endpoint. One study showed that SAMe combined with serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) was better than PBO combined with SSRI. The studies reported only mild, transient or non-clinically relevant side effects.

conclusionsThe existing trials of SAMe, used as monotherapy or add on to another antidepressants, have shown encouraging and generally positive results. However, more evidence is necessary before definitive conclusions can be drawn. Larger, double-blind randomised controlled studies are warranted to confirm the antidepressant effectiveness of SAMe.

Indexed as

AntidepressantDepressionNutraceuticalS-AdenosylmethionineSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32939220
PMCPMC7487540
OpenAlexW3083019535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.