阿立哌唑
随机对照试验
电休克疗法
荟萃分析
科克伦图书馆
医学
难治性抑郁症
萧条(经济学)
抗抑郁药
内科学
安慰剂
精神科
优势比
精神分裂症(面向对象编程)
焦虑
替代医学
经济
病理
宏观经济学
作者
Johan Saelens,A. Gramser,Victoria Watzal,Carlos A. Zarate,Rupert Lanzenberger,Christoph Kraus
标识
DOI:10.1038/s41386-024-02044-5
摘要
This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) sought to compare different antidepressant treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in order to facilitate evidence-based choices. A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception until April 13th, 2023 identified randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with depression who had not responded to at least two antidepressant trials; all RCTs had ≥10 participants per study arm, and participants with bipolar or psychotic depression were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2 was used to assess study quality. Response rate was the primary outcome measure. Odds ratios (ORs) using a random effects NMA are reported. From 8234 records, 69 RCTs were included in this analysis, encompassing 10,285 participants (5662 F/4623 M) and 25 separate treatments. Six of the 25 treatments demonstrated a higher response rate versus placebo or sham treatment: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), minocycline, theta-burst stimulation (TBS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), ketamine, and aripiprazole. ORs ranged from 1.9 (95%CI = [1.25; 2.91]) for aripiprazole to 12.86 (95%CI = [4.07; 40.63]) for ECT. Moderate heterogeneity of the model was observed (I
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI