SynthesisBMJ open2025
Beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine versus placebo, 'active placebo' or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Potent LeuBAT inhibitors designed in silico as next-generation duloxetine analogs for enhanced major depressive disorder treatment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Delving into the Perception, Use, and Context of Duloxetine in Clinical Practice: An Analysis Based on the Experience of Healthcare Professionals.Brain sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder.
designSystematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and other relevant databases up until January 2023. We requested clinical study reports from 36 competent authorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine versus placebo, 'active placebo' or no intervention, irrespective of publication type, publication status, publication year and language for treatment of major depressive disorder in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Five authors in pairs extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. A third review author was consulted for disagreements. Intervention effects were assessed by both random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses, risk of bias assessments were performed by two independent review authors using Cochrane's risk of bias tool V.2 and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
resultsWe included 28 trials randomising a total of 7872 participants. All results were at high risk of bias. The trials' assessment time points were between 6 and 16 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of duloxetine on depressive symptoms (mean difference -1.81, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) points; 95% CI -2.34 to -1.28; heterogeneity I
conclusionsDuloxetine appears to reduce depressive symptom scores and improve quality of life scores in the short term, but the effect sizes are minimal and of questionable patient importance. The short- and long-term effects of duloxetine on risks of SAEs and suicidality are uncertain. Duloxetine increases the risks of several short-term adverse events. Systematic assessments of benefits and harms over longer periods are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931.
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.