Efficacy of New Generation Antidepressants: Differences Seem Illusory

A. C. Del Re · Glen I. Spielmans · Christoph Flückiger · Bruce E. Wampold

71 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Treatment of Major Depression Mental Health Research Topics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, Cipriani and colleagues examined the relative efficacy of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression using network meta-analytic methods. They found that some of these medications outperformed others in patient response to treatment. However, several methodological criticisms have been raised about network meta-analysis and Cipriani's analysis in particular which creates the concern that the stated superiority of some antidepressants relative to others may be unwarranted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted which involved replicating Cipriani's network meta-analysis under the null hypothesis (i.e., no true differences between antidepressants). The following simulation strategy was implemented: (1) 1000 simulations were generated under the null hypothesis (i.e., under the assumption that there were no differences among the 12 antidepressants), (2) each of the 1000 simulations were network meta-analyzed, and (3) the total number of false positive results from the network meta-analyses were calculated. FINDINGS: Greater than 7 times out of 10, the network meta-analysis resulted in one or more comparisons that indicated the superiority of at least one antidepressant when no such true differences among them existed. INTERPRETATION: Based on our simulation study, the results indicated that under identical conditions to those of the 117 RCTs with 236 treatment arms contained in Cipriani et al.'s meta-analysis, one or more false claims about the relative efficacy of antidepressants will be made over 70% of the time. As others have shown as well, there is little evidence in these trials that any antidepressant is more effective than another. The tendency of network meta-analyses to generate false positive results should be considered when conducting multiple comparison analyses.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 71 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package 2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias 2006Bayesian Methods for Evidence Synthesis in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 1988Focused tests of significance and effect size estimation in counseling psychology.2012Adjustment for reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant trials

Cited by

2016In pursuit of truth: A critical examination of meta-analyses of cognitive behavior therapy 2018Is psychotherapy effective? A re-analysis of treatments for depression 2020Pharmacological treatments for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2019The dark side of the force: Multiplicity issues in network meta‐analysis and how to address them 2018A systematic review of network meta-analyses for pharmacological treatment of common mental disorders 2025Methodologies for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in pain, anaesthesia, and perioperative medicine: a narrative review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.