PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 2019BMJ Open153 citationsOpen Access

Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis

KMKlaus MunkholmAPAsger Sand Paludan‐MüllerKBKim Boesen

Key Result

Antidepressants showed a mean difference of 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21) on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale compared to placebo, with very low certainty of evidence.

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=116,477)

Structured PICO

Are antidepressants more efficacious than placebo for adult depression?

P
Population
116,477 participants from 522 trials evaluating the efficacy of antidepressants versus placebo for adult depression.
I
Intervention
Antidepressants
C
Comparator
Placebo
O
Outcome
Efficacy measured by investigator-rated depression symptom scales (e.g., 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale)patient reported

A reanalysis of a major network meta-analysis found that methodological limitations, publication bias, and reporting discrepancies undermine definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of antidepressants over placebo for adult depression.

Main Result

Mean Difference: 1.97 (95% CI 1.74–2.21)

Limitations

  • High risk of bias
  • Indirectness of the evidence
  • Publication bias
  • Outcome data discrepancies between clinical study reports and published data
  • high risk of bias
  • indirectness of the evidence
  • publication bias
  • outcome data differed from clinical study reports in 63% of trials

Abstract

Objectives To investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Cipriani et al ) that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo for adult depression was supported by the evidence. Design Reanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses. Data sources 522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Cipriani et al and clinical study reports for 19 of these trials. Analysis We used the Cochrane Handbook’s risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses. Results Several methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Cipriani et al . The effect size for antidepressants versus placebo on investigator-rated depression symptom scales was higher in trials with a ‘placebo run-in’ study design compared with trials without a placebo run-in design (p=0.05). The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (p<0.0001). The outcome data reported by Cipriani et al differed from the clinical study reports in 12 (63%) of 19 trials. The certainty of the evidence for the placebo-controlled comparisons should be very low according to GRADE due to a high risk of bias, indirectness of the evidence and publication bias. The mean difference between antidepressants and placebo on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (range 0–52 points) was 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21). Conclusions The evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Munkholm et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Adult depression (n=116,477). Antidepressants vs. Placebo was evaluated on 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (MD 1.97, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.21). Antidepressants showed a mean difference of 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21) on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale compared to placebo, with very low certainty of evidence.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a20a2bc2ad198cbe7f3747bhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024886
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper