首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medicine >Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis
【24h】

Which placebo to cure depression? A thought-provoking network meta-analysis

机译:哪种安慰剂可以治疗抑郁症?发人深省的网络荟萃分析

获取原文
       

摘要

Background Antidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clinical, we designed an unusual meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of placebo in one situation are different from the effects of placebo in another situation. Methods Published and unpublished studies were searched for by three reviewers on Medline , the Cochrane Library , Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, in bibliographies, and by mailing key organizations. The following studies in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder were considered to construct an “evidence network”: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo on fluoxetine, venlafaxine and 2) fluoxetine versus venlafaxine head-to-head RCTs. Two network meta-analyses were run to indirectly compare response and remission rates among three different placebos: 1) fluoxetine placebo, 2) venlafaxine placebo, and 3) venlafaxine/fluoxetine placebo (that is, placebo compared to both venlafaxine and fluoxetine). Publication biases were assessed using funnel plots and statistically tested. Results The three placebos were not significantly different in terms of response or remission. The antidepressant agents were significantly more efficacious than the placebos, and venlafaxine was more efficacious than fluoxetine. The funnel plots, however, showed a major publication bias. Conclusion The presence of significant levels of publication bias indicates that we cannot even be certain of the conclusion that sucrose equals sucrose in trials of major depressive disorder. This result should remind clinicians to step back to take a more objective view when interpreting a scientific result. It is of crucial importance for their practice, far more so than ranking antidepressant efficacy.
机译:尽管抗荟萃分析能够对抗抑郁药进行排名,但通常认为它们仅是安慰剂。因此,也应该可以对全部由蔗糖制成的不同安慰剂进行分级。为了探讨这个问题,而不是认识论,而不是临床问题,我们设计了一项不寻常的荟萃分析,以调查一种情况下安慰剂的作用与另一种情况下安慰剂的作用是否不同。方法通过书目中的Medline,Cochrane图书馆,Embase,Clinicaltrials.gov,Current Controlled Trial的三名审稿人和书目检索了已发表和未发表的研究。下列针对重度抑郁症的一线治疗研究旨在构建“证据网络”:1)氟西汀,文拉法辛与安慰剂的随机对照试验(RCT)与安慰剂的比较; 2)氟西汀与文拉法辛的头对头RCT对比。进行了两项网络荟萃分析,以间接比较三种不同安慰剂之间的缓解率和缓解率:1)氟西汀安慰剂,2)文拉法辛安慰剂和3)文拉法辛/氟西汀安慰剂(即与文拉法辛和氟西汀相比的安慰剂)。使用漏斗图评估出版偏倚并进行统计学检验。结果三个安慰剂在反应或缓解方面无显着差异。抗抑郁药比安慰剂有效得多,文拉法辛比氟西汀有效。但是,漏斗图显示了主要的发布偏差。结论显着水平的出版物偏倚的存在表明,我们甚至不能确定在重度抑郁症试验中蔗糖等于蔗糖的结论。该结果应提醒临床医生在解释科学结果时应退后一步,采取更为客观的观点。这对他们的实践至关重要,远不止抗抑郁药的有效性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号