Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42484816›Full record

SynthesisCNS drugs2026

Memantine Augmentation in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Stanley Lyndon, Donald R McNally

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CNS drugs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stanley LyndonHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. slyndon@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2651-9754
Donald R McNallyDepartment of Psychiatry, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, North Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) remains challenging to treat despite established treatments.

objectiveSince glutamatergic dysregulation is implicated in OCD, we systematically reviewed and meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjunctive memantine versus placebo for OCD.

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and trial registries from inception to September 2025 for RCTs of adjunctive memantine in adults with OCD [PROSPERO: CRD420251147106]. The primary outcome was endpoint Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score. Random-effects models used REML estimation with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with GRADE.

resultsSix RCTs (n = 288; 8-16 weeks; 5-20 mg/day) met inclusion criteria. Overall, memantine did not produce a statistically significant symptom reduction versus placebo (pooled mean difference -3.74 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.95 to 2.47), with high heterogeneity (I

conclusionsMemantine is not supported for routine use in unselected OCD. In treatment-resistant OCD, current evidence supports a hypothesis-generating signal that may justify cautious off-label discussion when established augmenters are unsuitable. An adequately powered RCT in refractory OCD is warranted.

Indexed as

MemantineObsessive-Compulsive DisorderDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeMemantine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.