SynthesisMedicine2021
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotropic drugs for functional dyspepsia in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second Asian Consensus Report on Functional Dyspepsia (2025): Updated Recommendations.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacological Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: An Old Story Revisited or a New Story to Be Told? A Clinical Review.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Comparing the efficacy of duloxetine and nortriptyline in alleviating the symptoms of functional dyspepsia - a randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders with Psychiatric Symptoms: Involvement of the Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis in the Pathophysiology and Case Management.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Prevalence, symptoms and risk factor profile of rumination syndrome and functional dyspepsia: a population-based study.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractPsychotropic drugs are frequently used for functional dyspepsia (FD); however, the efficacy of these drugs for treating FD remains controversial. We aimed to comprehensively compare the relative efficacies of different psychotropic drugs for FD in adults.To conduct this study, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases on March 10, 2019, and conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis on the search results. The primary outcome was treatment efficacy estimated by the proportion of patients who achieved a certain percentage decrease in symptoms or who dropped below the threshold of the global FD symptom scores. The secondary outcome was acceptability, defined as all-cause discontinuation. Odds ratios (ORs) were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).We deemed 10 trials to be eligible for analysis, and these trials included 970 participants and 10 psychotropic drugs. Flupentixol + melitracen (F + M) (OR, 10.00; 95% CI, 1.59 to 62.73), tandospirone (3.24, 1.38 to 7.60), imipramine (2.21, 1.02 to 4.79), and amitriptyline (1.71, 1.06 to 3.09) were significantly superior to placebo. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the most effective treatment was F + M (89.0%), whereas the least effective was R137696 (13.6%). In terms of acceptability, escitalopram (0.32, 0.11 to 0.92) was ranked as the worst drug (12.6%), followed by imipramine and sertraline.The present network meta-analysis suggests that F + M, tandospirone, imipramine, and amitriptyline are more effective than placebo as treatment for FD. Our results indicate that among the ten psychotropic drugs included, F + M is likely to be the most effective drug for alleviating dyspepsia symptoms.
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.