ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Comparative effectiveness of antidepressants for depression using EHRs from two health systems.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDepression is a prevalent mental health condition, and many patients are treated in primary care, yet optimal antidepressant selection remains uncertain. Real-world data can help address gaps in understanding comparative effectiveness. We examined comparative effectiveness of duloxetine and vortioxetine in patients with depression and evaluated heterogeneity in patient characteristics, comorbidities, and healthcare utilization using electronic health records (EHR) from two large health systems.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using EHR data from Duke University Health System (DUHS) and Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) from 2014 to 2021. Eligible participants were adult patients prescribed duloxetine or vortioxetine. We defined a Narrow Cohort requiring a concurrent depression diagnosis and a Broad Cohort based on prescription records. Comparative effectiveness analyses employed propensity score weighting methods. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within one year of cohort entry. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, a composite of hospitalization or ED visit, suicidal encounters, medication switching (either between the study drugs or from the study drugs to other psychiatric medications), and change in PHQ-9 score.
resultsThe Narrow Cohort included 3,337 (2,937 prescribed duloxetine and 400 vortioxetine) patients in DUHS and 3,237 (2,921 prescribed duloxetine and 316 vortioxetine) in the JHHS. Across both sites, vortioxetine users were more likely to be white, privately insured, and to have prior psychiatric medication use, while duloxetine users had higher comorbidity burden. Hospitalization rates were similar between treatments in both systems (OR
conclusionsComparative effectiveness estimates for duloxetine and vortioxetine using EHR data were largely consistent across two health systems, with no meaningful differences for most outcomes. Consistent findings across two cohorts support the robustness and generalizability of these results. These results suggest that harmonized multi-site EHR data can provide reliable evidence while highlighting the importance of accounting for health system context. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.