Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34620261›Full record

SynthesisPsychological medicine2021

Comparing the evidential strength for psychotropic drugs: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

Merle-Marie Pittelkow, Ymkje Anna de Vries, Rei Monden, Jojanneke A Bastiaansen, Don van Ravenzwaaij

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Merle-Marie PittelkowDepartment Psychometrics and Statistics, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7487-7898
Ymkje Anna de VriesDepartment of Developmental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4580-4873
Rei MondenInterdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1744-5447
Jojanneke A BastiaansenInterdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation, Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4831-6402
Don van RavenzwaaijDepartment Psychometrics and Statistics, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5030-4091
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approval and prescription of psychotropic drugs should be informed by the strength of evidence for efficacy. Using a Bayesian framework, we examined (1) whether psychotropic drugs are supported by substantial evidence (at the time of approval by the Food and Drug Administration), and (2) whether there are systematic differences across drug groups. Data from short-term, placebo-controlled phase II/III clinical trials for 15 antipsychotics, 16 antidepressants for depression, nine antidepressants for anxiety, and 20 drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were extracted from FDA reviews. Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis was performed and strength of evidence was quantified (i.e.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityAntidepressive AgentsBayes TheoremHumansPsychotropic DrugsAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsPsychotropic DrugsBayesian meta-analysisdrug endorsementevidential strengthpsychotropic drugs

Identifiers

PMID34620261
PMCPMC8640368
OpenAlexW3135149575

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.