scholarly journals Comorbid Major Depressive Disorder in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damien Etchecopar-Etchart ◽  
Theo Korchia ◽  
Anderson Loundou ◽  
Pierre-Michel Llorca ◽  
Pascal Auquier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Antidepressant Use

Abstract Comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) in schizophrenia (SZ; SZ-MDD) has been identified as a major prognostic factor. However, the prevalence and associated factors of SZ-MDD have never been explored in a meta-analysis. All studies assessing the prevalence of SZ-MDD in stabilized outpatients with a standardized scale or with structured interviews were included. The Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar databases were searched. Using random effects models, we calculated the pooled estimate of the prevalence of SZ-MDD. We used meta-regression and subgroup analyses to evaluate the potential moderators of the prevalence estimates, and we used the leave-one-out method for sensitivity analyses. Of the 5633 potentially eligible studies identified, 18 studies (n = 6140 SZ stabilized outpatients) were retrieved in the systematic review and included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of the prevalence of SZ-MDD was 32.6% (95% CI: 27.9–37.6); there was high heterogeneity (I2 = 92.6%), and Egger’s test did not reveal publication bias (P = .122). The following factors were found to be sources of heterogeneity: publication in or after 2015, the inclusion of patients from larger studies, the assessment tools, the inclusion of patients with substance use disorder or somatic chronic diseases, age, education level, the lifetime number of hospitalizations, and antidepressant use. Two-thirds of the extracted variables could not be explored due to an insufficient amount of published data. The prevalence of MDD is high among SZ individuals. Healthcare providers and public health officials should have an increased awareness of the burden of SZ-MDD.

scholarly journals Cognitive effects of non-surgical brain stimulation for major depressive disorder: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e023796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Kiebs ◽  
René Hurlemann ◽  
Julian Mutz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Cognitive Effects ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Major Depressive

IntroductionNon-surgical brain stimulation techniques may be considered as alternative or add-on treatments for patients with major depressive disorder who failed to respond to pharmacological interventions. Electroconvulsive therapy has been shown to be highly effective in reducing depressive symptoms but stakeholders remain concerned about adverse cognitive effects. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation may be associated with more benign adverse effect profiles and may indeed improve certain cognitive functions such as memory and attention. To guide clinical decision-making, we will carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive effects of eight non-surgical brain stimulation techniques.Methods and analysisA systematic literature search of the Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and OpenGrey will be performed. We will include both randomised clinical trials which report on at least one cognitive measure post treatment as well as non-randomised trials and pre-post intervention studies. There are no restrictions to the type of cognitive outcome measures, except that the tests are standardised and psychometrically validated. The Revised Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2.0) will be used to evaluate included trials. Pre-post studies will be evaluated using the quality assessment tool developed by the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Meta-analysis, meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted where sufficient data are available.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is needed to conduct this work. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018118850.

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Lipid Metabolomic Signatures of Major Depressive Disorder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veni Bharti ◽  
Aseem Bhardwaj ◽  
Kalli Hood ◽  
David A. Elias ◽  
Arron W.S. Metcalfe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document