SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine in treating patients with major depressive disorder: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Desvenlafaxine (DVS), a commonly used serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), is widely applied in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the efficacy and safety of different DVS dosages remain controversial. This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of various doses of DVS in treating MDD, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical dose selection. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different doses of DVS in adult MDD patients. A Bayesian random-effects model was employed for network meta-analysis, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to assess the overall performance of each dose in terms of efficacy (HAM-D17, CGI-S, MADRS scores) and safety (treatment-emergent adverse events, TEAEs). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. All data analyses were performed using R Studio and STATA. Results: A total of eight RCTs were included. The analysis showed that DVS at 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg/day significantly outperformed placebo in improving HAM-D17, CGI-S, and MADRS scores, with the 200 mg/day dose showing numerically greater improvement than the other doses. Regarding safety, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse event rates between any DVS dose and placebo ( Conclusion: DVS at doses ≥ 50 mg/day significantly improves depressive symptoms compared with placebo. Among the evaluated doses, 200 mg/day consistently showed numerically greater improvements while maintaining acceptable tolerability; however, the certainty of dose differences remains limited, and no definitive "optimal" dose can be established based on the current evidence.
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.