Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Associations of school tobacco policies and legislation with youth smoking: a cross-sectional study of Danish vocational high schools

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Protocol for a scoping review study to identify and map treatments for dysphagia following moderate to severe acquired brain injury

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Hair cortisol in newly diagnosed bipolar disorder and unaffected first-degree relatives

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Metabolic profile in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder and their unaffected first-degree relatives

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. A multisystem composite biomarker as a preliminary diagnostic test in bipolar disorder

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Thirty-year cardiovascular risk score in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder and their unaffected first-degree relatives

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Gut microbiota composition in patients with newly diagnosed bipolar disorder and their unaffected first-degree relatives

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMJ Open
Volume9
Issue number6
Pages (from-to)e024886
ISSN2044-6055
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jun 2019

ID: 57567668