Cargando…

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

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 SO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Munkholm, Klaus, Paludan-Müller, Asger Sand, Boesen, Kim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31248914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024886
_version_ 1783430624056442880
author Munkholm, Klaus
Paludan-Müller, Asger Sand
Boesen, Kim
author_facet Munkholm, Klaus
Paludan-Müller, Asger Sand
Boesen, Kim
author_sort Munkholm, Klaus
collection PubMed
description 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 The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (p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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6597641
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65976412019-07-18 Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis Munkholm, Klaus Paludan-Müller, Asger Sand Boesen, Kim BMJ Open Mental Health 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6597641/ /pubmed/31248914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024886 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Mental Health
Munkholm, Klaus
Paludan-Müller, Asger Sand
Boesen, Kim
Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
title Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
title_full Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
title_short Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
title_sort considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis
topic Mental Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31248914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024886
work_keys_str_mv AT munkholmklaus consideringthemethodologicallimitationsintheevidencebaseofantidepressantsfordepressionareanalysisofanetworkmetaanalysis
AT paludanmullerasgersand consideringthemethodologicallimitationsintheevidencebaseofantidepressantsfordepressionareanalysisofanetworkmetaanalysis
AT boesenkim consideringthemethodologicallimitationsintheevidencebaseofantidepressantsfordepressionareanalysisofanetworkmetaanalysis