ReviewCureus2026
Top 50 Cited Articles on the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.
Review in Cureus, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common mental health disorder and is one of the leading causes of disability. Numerous treatment modalities have been studied for MDD, from interventions to psychotherapies. However, no exhaustive investigation has yet provided an overview of influential research on MDD treatments. Studies do not cover influential efforts occurring in the form of a comprehensive bibliometric review. This bibliometric study aims to fill this gap by thoroughly examining the characteristics of the 50 most cited articles on MDD treatment and providing an essential understanding of the intellectual structure and historical development over time. To guarantee a comprehensive research collection of trends in the treatment of MDD, we reviewed 50 pertinent papers without limiting the search by publication year, and the data collection was performed in a neutral manner. The search focuses on extensive citations from other publications and categorizes them according to their frequencies. Between 1989 and 2018, the top 50 MDD treatment publications received 96-1,837 citations (median 210, IQR 121-299). The 2000s and 2010s had a high level of publication activity (21 articles each, 42% per decade). Geographically, the United States (24, 48%), Canada (12, 24%), and the United Kingdom (5, 10%) dominated the journals. The majority of study types were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (32, 64%), followed by systematic reviews/meta-analyses (16, 32%) and prospective cohorts (2, 4%). The publications covered a range of treatment modalities, including pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, neurostimulation, and lifestyle/complementary approaches. Elkin et al.'s NIMH Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program report (1,738 citations) and Unützer et al.'s IMPACT collaborative care RCT (1,837 citations) were the most referenced publications. Our results shed light on the conceptual framework of MDD treatment research, as current guidelines are shaped by significant randomized trials and systematic reviews. Precision-based and new treatments are growing the field, while traditional therapies continue to play a major role. Global applicability is limited by the geographic concentration of research, underscoring the need for diverse populations, assessment of new treatments, and incorporation of individual patient data to bolster the body of 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.