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.
Albesher et al. (Sun,) studied this question.