SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of seven Chinese patent medicines combined with SSRIs for depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depressive disorder is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) remain first-line pharmacotherapy. However, the efficacy and safety of adding Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) as adjunctive therapy to SSRIs have not been systematically evaluated in a network meta-analysis. Objective: To compare and rank seven CPMs combined with SSRIs for depressive disorder in terms of HAMD improvement, clinical response rate, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) rate. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP from inception to April 1, 2026. Trials comparing any CPM + SSRI versus the same SSRI alone in adults with depressive disorder were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2.0). Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (using both netmeta and getmc packages) were performed; cumulative probability (SUCRA) rankings were derived from Bayesian analysis with getmc. Confidence in evidence was evaluated with CINeMA. Results: Sixty-five trials involving 5,975 patients were included. Compared with SSRIs alone, all CPM + SSRI combinations significantly improved HAMD score (MD range -2.60 to -6.20) and clinical response rate (OR range 1.8-5.0). For HAMD, JYW+SSRIs showed the highest SUCRA ranking, followed by BJTGT+SSRIs and SGJY+SSRIs, though these rankings are probabilistic. For response rate, BJTGT+SSRIs showed the highest SUCRA ranking, but statistically unconfirmed. For safety, TM+SSRIs showed the highest SUCRA ranking, though no ADR comparison reached significance; YXQN+SSRIs ranked second in SUCRA analysis, based on one small trial. Egger's test indicated no publication bias for HAMD (p = 0.5753) but potential bias for clinical response rate (p = 0.0002). Sensitivity analysis excluding small studies confirmed the robustness of HAMD findings. Conclusion: Adding CPMs to SSRIs may enhance efficacy and reduce ADRs. Although the rankings suggest promising efficacy, they are probabilistic in nature, and the effect estimates and their confidence intervals should be given greater weight in interpretation. No ADR comparisons reached statistical significance, and evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of some CPMs remains limited. Findings should be interpreted with caution, and future studies should further evaluate the safety and efficacy of combined therapy. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261299414.
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.