SynthesisDepression and anxiety2026
Blunted Niacin Skin Flushing Response in Mood Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies.
Synthesis in Depression and anxiety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blunted Niacin Skin Flushing Response in Mood Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies.Depression and anxiety · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mood disorders (MDs), including depressive disorder (DD) and bipolar disorder (BD), represent a major global health burden, yet the absence of objective biomarkers has persistently hindered their accurate clinical diagnosis. The niacin skin flushing response (NSFR) has shown promise as a potential biomarker; however, inconsistencies in diagnostic efficacy and response characteristics across studies have limited its utility. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the NSFR in MD patients to address these discrepancies. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted for articles published through May 2025, identifying 18 eligible case-control studies involving 1848 participants (888 MD patients and 960 HC). Random-effects models were used to assess the degree, speed, and sensitivity of NSFR, while subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: MD patients exhibited markedly blunted NSFR, characterized by reduced degree and speed of response (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.12; -0.05] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.35; 1.10]), while no statistically significant difference in NSFR sensitivity was observed (SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: [-0.18; 1.20]). Subgroup analyses identified substantial heterogeneity across detection methods, geographical regions, and control sources, highlighting the need for standardized protocols. Meta-regression analyses indicated that sample size, publication year, gender distribution, and age did not significantly affect outcomes, further strengthening the robustness of our findings. Conclusion: This study reinforces the potential of NSFR as a biomarker for MD and highlights the critical need to address heterogeneity through standardized methodologies in future research to enhance its diagnostic reliability.
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.