ArticlePloS one2022
A network meta-analysis of 12,116 individuals from randomized controlled trials in the treatment of depression after acute coronary syndrome.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-Myocardial Infarction Psychological Distress: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Predicting Long-Term Depression Risk in ACS Patients After PCI: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 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
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) depression is a common but not well understood complication experienced by ACS patients. Research on the effectiveness of various therapies remains limited. Hence, we sought to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of different interventions for post-ACS depression in improving patient outcomes. METHODS AND
findingsThree electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials describing different depression treatment modalities in post-ACS patients. Each article was screened based on inclusion criteria and relevant data were extracted. A bivariate analysis and a network meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. A total of 30 articles were included in our analysis. Compared to standard care, psychosocial therapy was associated with the greatest reduction in depression scores (SMD:-1.21, 95% CI: -1.81 to -0.61, p<0.001), followed by cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (SMD: -0.75, 95% CI: -0.99 to -0.52, p<0.001), antidepressants (SMD: -0.73, 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.31, p<0.001), and lastly, combination therapy (SMD: -0.15, 95% CI: -0.28 to -0.03, p = 0.016). No treatment modalities was found to be more effective in reducing depression scores when compared to one another. Additional analysis showed that these treatment modalities did not have significant impact on the overall mortality, cardiac mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction.
conclusionThis network meta-analysis found that the treatment effect of the various psychological modalities on depression severity were similar. Future trials on psychological interventions assessing clinical outcomes and improvement in adherence to ACS-specific interventions are needed.
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.