ArticleTranslational psychiatry2023
Interpreting clinical trial outcomes complicated by placebo response with an assessment of false-negative and true-negative clinical trials in depression using propensity-weighting.
Article in Translational psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quo Vadis translational neuroscience?Translational neuroscience · 2026Review
- Turbulent-like Dynamics Predict Treatment Outcome in Major Depressive Disorder.Research square · 2025Article
- Metformin use on the risks of depression and anxiety in people with type 2 diabetes.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Randomization and placebo effects in clinical trials of major depressive disorder.Translational psychiatry · 2025Article
- Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methodologies for Predicting the Non-Specific Treatment Response in Placebo Controlled Major Depressive Disorder Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Model-informed approach to estimate treatment effect in placebo-controlled clinical trials using an artificial intelligence-based propensity weighting methodology to account for non-specific responses to treatment.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the propensity score weighted (PSW) methodology in a post-hoc re-analysis of a failed and a negative RCTs in depressive disorders. The conventional study designs, randomizations, and statistical approaches do not account for the baseline distribution of major non-specific prognostic and confounding factors such as the individual propensity to show a placebo effect (PE). Therefore, the conventional analysis approaches implicitly assume that the baseline PE is the same for all subjects in the trial even if this assumption is not supported by our knowledge on the impact of PE on the estimated treatment effect (TE). The consequence of this assumption is an inflation of false negative results (type II error) in presence of a high proportion of subjects with high PE and an inflation of false positive (type I error) in presence of a high proportion of subjects with low PE value. Differently from conventional approaches, the inverse of the PE probability was used as weight in the mixed-effects analysis to assess TE in the PSW analysis. The results of this analysis indicated an enhanced signal of drug response in a failed trial and confirmed the absence of drug effect in a negative trial. This approach can be considered as a reference prospective or post-hoc analysis approach that minimize the risk of inflating either type I or type II error in contrast to what happens in the analyses of RCT studies conducted with the conventional statistical methodology.
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.