Trial reportJAMA network open2025
Measurement-Based Care to Enhance Antidepressant Treatment Outcomes in Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05431374 (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Measurement-Based Care Vs. Standard Care for Major Depressive Disorder in Pakistan), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Measurement-Based Care Vs. Standard Care for Major Depressive Disorder in Pakistan
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Errors in Table 1.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Transdiagnostic Assessment of Mental Health and Sleep Registry: Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Study.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Article
- The relevance of phenotypic definition in treatment resistant forms of major depressive disorder: a narrative review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Next-Generation Pharmacotherapy for Depressive Disorders: From Novel Compounds to Optimized Use of Available Drugs.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Measurement-based care (MBC) guides clinical decisions through structured monitoring of symptoms and adverse effects. Although MBC has been associated with improved outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD), its effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains understudied. Objective: To assess whether MBC accelerates the resolution of depressive symptoms compared with standard care among adults with MDD in Pakistan. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted in Pakistan from September 2022 to January 2024, with 24 weeks of follow-up. Adults diagnosed with nonpsychotic MDD were recruited from psychiatric hospitals and primary care centers in 7 Pakistani cities (Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Hyderabad, Peshawar, Multan, and Quetta). Participants were randomized 1:1 to MBC or standard care. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. Interventions: By design, pharmacotherapy was limited to paroxetine or mirtazapine in both MBC or standard care groups. The MBC group completed the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report and the Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating Scale at each visit (baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24). Scores from these instruments informed antidepressant dose adjustments or switch. The standard care group received treatment based on clinician judgment and did not undergo repeated clinical measurements. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were time to response (defined as ≥50% reduction in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS-17]; range: 0-52, with the highest score indicating severe depression) and time to remission (defined as HDRS-17 score of ≤7) within the 24-week follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included changes in HDRS-17 scores and rates of adverse effects or treatment discontinuation. Results: A total of 154 adults (mean [SD] age, 34.5 [10.5] years; 105 females [68.2%]) were randomized. Median (IQR) time to response was faster with MBC than with standard care (2 [2-4] weeks vs 4 [2-12] weeks); similarly, median (IQR) time to remission was faster for MBC vs standard care (4 [4-8] weeks vs 8 weeks [2 weeks to no remission] weeks). At week 24, there were no significant differences in rates of response or remission between groups. After week 24, reduction in mean HDRS-17 scores was significantly but modestly greater in the MBC group than in the standard care group (-18.1 [95% CI, 16.4-19.6] points vs -17.0 [95% CI, 15.6-18.5] points; t129 = 0.71; P < .001). No differences were observed in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This trial of adults with MDD found that MBC led to faster time to response and time to remission than standard care in low-resource settings. Future studies need to confirm the clinical effectiveness of MBC and assess its cost-effectiveness in LMICs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05431374.
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.