ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
A Delphi consensus on clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of major depressive disorder patients with anhedonia amongst psychiatrists in the Asia-Pacific.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Common and disorder-specific aberrant activation during reward and loss processing in major depressive disorder and addiction: a meta-analysis of fMRI studies.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Azetukalner, a Novel KV7 Potassium Channel Opener, in Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Blunted anticipation, but not consummation, of food rewards in depression.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Patient perspectives on the challenges, obstacles, and opportunities in discussing and managing anhedonia in major depressive disorder (MDD): a focus group study.Annals of general psychiatry · 2026Article
- Excessive Internet use and depressive symptom levels in adolescents with depressive disorders: chain mediation of social anxiety and sleep quality.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Brain Tumors, AI and Psychiatry: Predicting Tumor-Associated Psychiatric Syndromes with Machine Learning and Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Understanding anhedonia in major depressive disorder in Japan: epidemiology and unmet needs from patients' and physicians' perspectives.BMC psychiatry · 2025Observational
- Anhedonia as a Core Symptom of Depression and a Construct for Biological Research.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2025Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anhedonia, a core diagnostic feature for major depressive disorder (MDD), is defined as the loss of pleasure and interest in daily activities. Its prevalence in MDD patients vary from 35 to 70%. Anhedonia in MDD negatively impacts functioning and is associated with treatment resistance and poorer prognosis for various clinical outcomes. Owing to its complexity, there remains considerable heterogeneity in the conceptualization, diagnosis and clinical management of anhedonia in MDD. Methods: This modified Delphi panel was conducted to elicit expert opinion and establish consensus on concepts relating to clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of MDD with anhedonia (MDDwA) amongst psychiatrists in the Asia-Pacific region. Seven themes were covered. A three-stage process was adopted for consensus generation (two online survey rounds, followed by a moderated consensus meeting). Statements were developed based on a literature review and input from a steering committee of six regional experts. The panel included 12 psychiatrists practicing in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan with ≥5 years of specialist clinical experience, including assessment or management of patients with MDDwA. Results: Overall, consensus was achieved (median ≥8) on 89/103 statements (86%). About half of the statements (55/103, 53%) achieved consensus in Round 1, and 29/36 modified statements achieved consensus in Round 2. At the moderated consensus meeting, five modified statements were discussed by the steering committee and consensus was achieved on all statements (5/5). The findings highlighted a lack of clear and practical methods in clinical practice for assessing anhedonia in MDD patients and limited physician awareness of anhedonia in Asia-Pacific. Conclusion: Insights from this Delphi consensus provide a reference point for psychiatrists in Asia-Pacific to optimize their strategies for personalized diagnosis and management of patients with MDDwA. Identification of distinct and clinically relevant subtypes in MDD may be valuable for guiding personalized diagnosis and management approaches, including type-specific therapies.
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.