SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
Comparative efficacy of antidepressant medication for adolescent depression: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Thought Induction Psychotherapy Technique's Clinical Effectiveness in Treating Adolescent Depression and Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Psychiatry investigation · 2026Article
- Music therapy for mental health in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026Review
- Classifying and visualizing medication use in the ABCD study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Zinc Ameliorates LPS-Induced Depressive-Like Behaviors Via Modulating Microglial Polarization.Biological trace element research · 2026Article
- Depression in Chinese adolescents: prevalence, symptoms, risk factors, affected brain, diagnosis, and interventions.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Sequential bilateral rTMS combined with fluoxetine for anhedonic depression in adolescents: clinical efficacy and peripheral inflammatory profiles.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Classifying and visualizing medication use in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Exercise improves depressive-like behavior in adolescent mice by regulating sphingosine and ceramide metabolism through microglial CerS1.Communications biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the success rate of different antidepressants in addressing depression among teenagers, while also offering substantiation for the efficacy and tolerability of these treatments in this demographic.
methodsParticipants were adolescents aged 6-18 years diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) , Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD-3) or equivalent diagnostic criteria (e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition(DSM-4) , International Classification of Diseases, Tenth/Eleventh Revision(ICD10/11) ) . We conducted a systematic search of major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2024. The search strategy included the following keywords: "Depression," "Depressive Disorders," "Emotional Disorders," "adolescent," "young adult, " "minors," "fluoxetine," "sertraline," "paroxetine," "agomelatine," "vilazodone," "escitalopram," and "venlafaxine."
resultsOur network meta-analysis(NMA) included 15 RCTs involving 12,258 participants. The included studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The majority of studies had low risk of bias in terms of randomization and allocation concealment, while some studies had unclear implementation of blinding or outcome assessment. The NMA results showed that in several major indicators Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) , Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) , agomelatine (MD = -0.34, 95 % CI = -0.59, -0.09), fluoxetine (MD = -0.31, 95 % CI = -0.42, -0.21), sertraline (MD = -0.27, 95 % CI = -0.47, -0.06) were significantly better than placebo in improving CDRS-R. In terms of CGI-S, sertraline (MD = -4.39, 95 % CI = -4.77, -4.01) was more effective. In contrast to the placebo, escitalopram (MD = 2.08,95 % CI = 1.33,2.84) was more effective in CGAS; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) values showed that escitalopram (96.1 % and 86.4 %) could achieve better therapeutic effects in CGAS and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) , and agomelatine (86.4 %) was more effective in improving CDRS-R scores than other drugs. Sertraline (100 %) appears to be the most likely strategy to decelerate the increase in CGI-I scores. The effectiveness of paroxetine (99.9%) in the management of Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was significantly better than that of several other drugs.
conclusionFor symptom severity scales, agomelatine (CDRS-R: SUCRA 86.4%) and paroxetine (MADRS: SUCRA 99.9%) demonstrated the greatest efficacy. For functional improvement, escitalopram ranked highest on CGAS (SUCRA 96.1%). Sertraline showed superiority in clinician-rated severity (CGI-S: SUCRA 100%) and improvement (CGI-I: SUCRA 80.2%). Clinical decisions should prioritize escitalopram for functional recovery and sertraline for severe cases requiring rapid symptom reduction.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42024609880.
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.