The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.Methods We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.Findings From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.Interpretation Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.Funding National Key Research and Development Program of China.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Own result · 28 Own method · 24 Not checked yet · 5 Own interpretation · 3 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This updated analysis is based on 71 RCTs, which included 9510 children and adolescents with depressive disorders randomly assigned to 28 active interventions or four control conditions.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plainn = 9,510- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study provides the first comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of all available RCTs, comparing any active interventions (antidepressant, psychotherapy, and their combination) with another or control conditions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Added value of this study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that studies with high risk of bias were associated with a lower dropout rate.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Figure 3: Network meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of suicidality, our findings confirmed that venlafaxine is associated with an increased risk of suicidal behaviour or ideation compared with pill placebo and ten other interventions.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Added value of this study
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The network meta-analysis satisfies the transitivity assumption, meaning the included comparisons are sufficiently similar in effect modifiers.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A single common heterogeneity variance applies to all comparisons in the network.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Uninformative prior distributions for treatment effects are appropriate for the network meta-analysis models.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nortriptyline was worse than most active interventions; however, the interpretation of this result was limited by the inconsistent loop of nortriptyline versus fluoxetine versus pill placebo.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that, of all the included active interventions, only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more efficacious than pill placebo in children and adolescents with depressive disorders.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirectn = 9,510- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fluoxetine plus CBT was associated with a greater reduction in depressive symptoms than either CBT or psychodynamic psychotherapy, with very low confidence of evidence.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We found that venlafaxine had a significantly increased risk for suicidality (suicidal behaviour or ideation) for young people, which is in line with previous reviews.10,11”
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
“Venlafaxine was associated with a significantly increased risk of suicidal behaviour or ideation compared with pill placebo (OR 8•31, 95% CrI 1•92-343•17) and ten other interventions (citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluoxetine plus CBT, duloxetine, imipramine, family therapy, desvenlafaxine, CBT, and pill placebo plus CBT; ORs ranged from 5•07 to 18•98; figure 4C; appendix pp 67-69).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Cipriani, 2016, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Vitiello, 2018, Twenty years of progress in paediatric psychopharmacology: accomplishments and unmet needs, Evid Based Ment Health source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that, in terms of efficacy, only fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy and fluoxetine alone were more efficacious than pill placebo, psychological controls and some active treatments for the acute treatment of depressive disorder in children and adolescents.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Added value of this study
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The network meta-analysis satisfies the transitivity assumption, meaning the included comparisons are sufficiently similar in effect modifiers.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A single common heterogeneity variance applies to all comparisons in the network.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Uninformative prior distributions for treatment effects are appropriate for the network meta-analysis models.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that studies in which participants had more severe depressive symptoms at baseline were associated with larger treatment effects”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Figure 3: Network meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“5051 (57•2%) of the sample population were female.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to CINeMA, nine (12•5%) of 72 comparisons for the efficacy outcome were rated as low confidence of evidence and 63 (87•5%) as very low, and for the acceptability outcome, one (1•3%) was rated as high confidence of evidence, three (4•0%) as moderate, 13 (17•3%) as low, and 58 (77•3%) as very low (appendix pp 107-125).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Figure 3: Network meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These summary effect sizes were mostly medium to large with some uncertainty, which might result from the small number of patients included, and wide credible intervals.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plainn = 9,510- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median duration of the acute treatment was 8 weeks (IQR 8-12).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“7179 (75•5%) of 9510 patients had moderateto severe major depressive disorder, with a mean reported baseline severity score on the Children's Depression Rating ScaleRevised of 58•5 (SD 10•1), Children's Depression Inventory of 23•3 (SD 8•8), or Beck Depression Inventory of 24•7 (11•4).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plainn = 9,510- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The age range was from 3 years to 20 years (mean age 14•0 years, SD 2•6); two studies included participants up to 20 years of age, but were included, because the majority of participants and the mean age were younger than 18 years.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“41 (57•7%) studies were done in North America, 12 (16•9%) in Europe, five (7•0%) in Asia, two (2•8%) in Australia, and one (1•4%) in South America, seven (9•9%) trials were crosscontinental, and the remaining three (4•2%) were either from other regions or did not specify.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to three or more groups in ten (14•1%) of 71 studies.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plainn = 71- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only outpatients were recruited in 41 (55•7%) of 71 studies.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“4081 participants were randomly assigned to anti depressants, 1575 to psychotherapy, 553 to a combination treatment, and 3301 to a psychological control or pill placebo.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plainn = 4,081- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that interpersonal psychotherapy was more efficacious than all psychological controls, but with very low confidence of evidence.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 20 366 citations, retrieved the full text of 390 potentially eligible articles, and included 71 RCTs (9510 patients) published between 1986 and 2018 (figure 1).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plainn = 9,510- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean study sample size was 136 participants and ranged from 10 to 529 (tables”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
plainn = 136- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, in the network, we found some global and local inconsistencies in efficacy outcomes, but few in acceptability outcomes”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“companies funded 24 (33•8%) of 71 studies.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fluoxetine plus CBT was more effective than CBT (SMDs -0•78, 95% CrI -1•55 to -0•01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1•14, -2•20 to -0•08)”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
plaindirectn = 8,906- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The test of global incoherence showed a significant difference between the consistency and inconsistency models for efficacy (p<0•0001), but not for acceptability (p=0•5531; appendix p 74).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The network meta-analysis transitivity assumption holds across the various control conditions.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median heterogeneity variances were estimated at 0•49 (95% CrI 0•37-0•64) for efficacy and 0•32 (0•04-0•61) for acceptability.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The global I² values were 56% for efficacy and 14% for acceptability.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The appendix (p 39) lists the changes to the original protocol, which is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Table 1: Randomised controlled trials of drugs included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which might result from the small number of patients included, and wide credible intervals.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We assessed the confidence of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the Confidence In Network MetaAnalysis (CINeMA) software.17”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Implications of all the available evidence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Salanti, 2014, Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis, PLoS One source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To ensure convergence, trace plots and the BrooksGelmanRubin statistic were assessed.24”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Table 1: Randomised controlled trials of drugs included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Brooks, 1998, General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations, J Comput Graph Stat source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“especially cognitivebehavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy, appeared to be more effective compared with psychological controls in previous metaanalyses.7,8”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Zhou, 2015, Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for depression in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis, World Psychiatry source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Eckshtain, 2020, Meta-analysis: 13-year follow-up of psychotherapy effects on youth depression, J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Missing continuous outcome data were analysed using the last available followup data, and missing dicho tomous outcome data were managed according to the intentiontotreat principle.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.14”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Implications of all the available evidence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Zhou, 2017, Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychological interventions, and their combination for depressive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a network meta-analysis, BMJ Open source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous metaanalyses 10,11 have shown that anti depres sants, except for fluoxetine, do not offer a clear advantage over pill placebo for many individuals, and some antidepressants might increase risk of suicidality.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Cipriani, 2016, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Vitiello, 2018, Twenty years of progress in paediatric psychopharmacology: accomplishments and unmet needs, Evid Based Ment Health source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings might result from the fact that most psycho therapy trials, which were assessed as high risk of bias due to nonblinding of performance and personnel, had relatively lower dropout rates and baseline severity scores than the pharmacological trials (appendix pp 91-96).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Figure 3: Network meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did pre specified sensitivity analyses for primary outcomes by omitting trials with unpublished data, trials with imputed data, trials with sample sizes smaller than 20, trials with inconsistent treatment durations and selected time points, and trials with nonblinding assessment.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Table 1: Randomised controlled trials of drugs included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Whether the combination of antidepressant and psychological interventions is more beneficial than antidepressants alone remains unclear.13”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Cox, 2012, Psychological therapies versus antidepressant medication, alone and in combination for depression in children and adolescents, Cochrane Database Syst Rev source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“We used comparisonadjusted funnel plots to assess publi cation bias.23”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Table 1: Randomised controlled trials of drugs included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Chaimani, 2013, Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA, PLoS One source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“which would affect the transitivity of the whole network and restricts the interpretation of these results.15”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Boutron, 2007, Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments, PLoS Med source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The network meta-analysis transitivity assumption holds across the various control conditions.
In the paper
“all antidepressants were more efficacious than pill placebo 27”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Cipriani, 2018, Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis, Lancet source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To assess transitivity, we compared the distribution of clinical and methodological variables (eg, age, sex, depressive severity at baseline, and treatment duration) that could act as effect modifiers across treatment com parisons.14”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Data analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Zhou, 2017, Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychological interventions, and their combination for depressive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a network meta-analysis, BMJ Open source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous metaanalyses 10,11 have shown that anti depres sants, except for fluoxetine, do not offer a clear advantage over pill placebo for many individuals, and some antidepressants might increase risk of suicidality.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Cipriani, 2016, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Vitiello, 2018, Twenty years of progress in paediatric psychopharmacology: accomplishments and unmet needs, Evid Based Ment Health source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“They do, however, form a substantial proportion of the patients seen in realworld, clinical settings.37”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Cheung, 2018, Guidelines for adolescent depression in primary care (GLAD-PC): part II. Treatment and ongoing management, Pediatrics source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that some comparisons had relatively low or high values in the transitivity assessment; thus, we downgraded the confidence of these comparisons.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We did our best to retrieve all available unpublished information and contacted study authors for supple mentary data, but we cannot rule out the possibility that some unpublished studies are still missing.38”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] de Vries, 2019, Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials, Psychol Med source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some of the adverse effects would also be expected in psychotherapy trials, including the emergence of new symptoms and strains in the patienttherapist relationship, 43 however, few psychotherapy trials report data on adverse events and suicidality.44”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we have checked the published data with their protocols or trial register reports, we were not able to investigate these main outcomes at the individual patient level.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The data from included trials other than Restoring Study 329 are accurate.
In the paper
“Sixth, antidepressants with different doses might produce different treatment effects.41”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Berney, 2005, Dose-response relationship of recent antidepressants in the short-term treatment of depression, Dialogues Clin Neurosci source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We retrieved unpublished information for 11 (15•5%) of the 71 included trials.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We excluded obser vational studies to decrease the hetero geneity in the network metaanalysis; however, obser vational studies can provide more information about realworld evidence on antidepressant effectiveness in the studied population group.46”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Kernot, 2019, One step closer to personalised prescribing of antidepressants: using real-world data together with patients and clinicians' preferences, Evid Based Ment Health source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we included antidepressants without therapeutic dose ranges, we should consider the potential dose effects in this review.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, before the study, we established a hierarchy of informants of depressive rating scales, which could reduce this type of outcome bias.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relatively few studies addressed the issue of preventing relapse of depression in children and adolescents, and some of the adverse effects of anti depressants and response to psychotherapy occur over a prolonged period, meaning that positive results need to be interpreted with caution.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this network metaanalysis, a small number of trials compared the same treatments, and the assumption of transitivity over various control conditions was under stated.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The network meta-analysis transitivity assumption holds across the various control conditions.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, despite the Egger's test showing no publication bias for most outcomes, we found some potential asymmetry of funnel plots in this network metaanalysis.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite these limitations, the findings from this network metaanalysis represent the most comprehensive analysis of the available evidence.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The network meta-analysis transitivity assumption holds across the various control conditions.
- Rests on an assumption: The data from included trials other than Restoring Study 329 are accurate.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“32 trials (45•1%) were rated high on risk of bias, 32 (45•1%) as moderate, and seven (9•9%) as low (appendix pp 49-53).”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have selected the data from Restoring Study 329 for this review, but we could not assure the accuracy of the data in the other included trials.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The data from included trials other than Restoring Study 329 are accurate.
In the paper
“Additionally, different outcomes from the same trials can be a source of pharmaceutical marketing bias.35”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Lexchin, 2003, Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review, BMJ source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this review, we have excluded trials with treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, which could reduce the effect for the final analysis.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The existing evidence does not clearly establish that psychotherapy is more effective and safer than antidepressants for child and adolescent depressive disorder.
“However, the evidence base has not been well established that psychotherapy is more effective and safer than antidepressants in the treatment of child and adolescent depressive disorder, and whether the combination of antidepressants and psychotherapies is more beneficial than antidepressants alone remains unknown.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The network meta-analysis satisfies the transitivity assumption, meaning the included comparisons are sufficiently similar in effect modifiers.
“To assess transitivity, we compared the distribution of clinical and methodological variables (eg, age, sex, depressive severity at baseline, and treatment duration) that could act as effect modifiers across treatment com parisons.14”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A single common heterogeneity variance applies to all comparisons in the network.
“A common estimate for the heterogeneity variance was assumed for all comparisons in the entire network, and we assessed the presence of statistical heterogeneity using the magnitude of the heterogeneity variance parameter (τ²) and total I² statistic.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Uninformative prior distributions for treatment effects are appropriate for the network meta-analysis models.
“We fitted all models of network metaanalysis with uninformative previous distributions for the treatment effects.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The network meta-analysis transitivity assumption holds across the various control conditions.
“the assumption of transitivity over various control conditions was under stated.”
“in order to support transitivity assumption in the network”
The paper relies on this without support.
The data from included trials other than Restoring Study 329 are accurate.
“we could not assure the accuracy of the data in the other included trials.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Treatment options for a child or adolescent with IBD who is diagnosed with anxiety or depression can include psychotherapy such as CBT and medications like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (94).”
From The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Mental Health and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (2023) · cites this paper as [94]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“In addition, the risk of recurrence after the first two episodes is substantially less than after the third and subsequent episodes, indicating an early potential for recovery on which interventions should capitalise. 488”
From Time for united action on depression: a Lancet–World Psychiatric Association Commission (2022) · cites this paper as [488]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Outcomes
“If information at 8 weeks was not available, we used data from 4-16 weeks (we gave preference to the timepoint closest to 8 weeks; if equidistant, we took the longer outcome).14”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Figure 3: Network meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability
“Trowell et al (2007) K-SADS MDD or dysthymia Psychodynamic therapy (24•7 sessions); family therapy (11 sessions) 35/37 36 (36)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Only outpatients were recruited in 41 (55•7%) of 71 studies.”
§ Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis > Results
Reported 55.7 · recomputed 57.746479
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations
Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1998) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787 · Cited by 6,045
Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Chaimani, A., Atkinson, L. Z., Ogawa, Y., Leucht, S., Ruhe, H. G., Turner, E. H., Higgins, J. P. T., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32802-7 · Cited by 3,541
Self-citationChecking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis
Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., & Ades, A. E. (2010) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3767 · Cited by 2,521
Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA
Chaimani, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavridis, D., Spyridonos, P., & Salanti, G. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654 · Cited by 2,473
Thapar, A., Collishaw, S., Pine, D. S., & Thapar, A. K. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60871-4 · Cited by 2,365
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147
Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies
Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Barrett, J. K., Lu, G., Ades, A. E., & White, I. R. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1044 · Cited by 2,098
The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions
Lunn, D., Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., & Best, N. (2009) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3680 · Cited by 1,876
Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Geddes, J. R., Higgins, J. P., Churchill, R., Watanabe, N., Nakagawa, A., Omori, I. M., McGuire, H., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60046-5 · Cited by 1,654
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–362 of 362
Gong, C., Zeng, W., Xiao, X., Liu, Q., & Luo, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1881200
Prescribing in Children and Adolescents
(2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119870203.mpg005.pub2
The Black Box of Antidepressant Treatment Persistence in Children and Adolescents
Wesselhoeft, R. T., & Kildegaard, H. (2026) · Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/ppe.70124
Depression in the Paediatric Population: Current Therapeutic Context and Challenges to Innovation
Rodrigues, A. R., Palavra, F., Bell, V., Mascarenhas‐Melo, F., Almeida, L., & Veiga, F. (2024) · Sinapse · doi:10.46531/sinapse/ar/230029/2023
Wen, M., Zhang, J., Jiang, K., Liu, J., & Zhu, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1643496
(2000) · Time to knit · doi:10.1016/s1633-776x(24)49055-8
Aumento del riesgo suicida asociado a farmacoterapia en pacientes con trastornos psiquiátricos.Preprint
Labra, D. Á. R., Figueroa, V. S., González, W. T., Lilian Salvo, G., Cortés-Jofré, M., & Ortiz-Muñoz, L. E. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/bc4jf
Huang, S., Zhou, S., Zhang, L., Wu, F., Zhang, Z., Ning, Y., Liu, Z., Wu, J., Chen, B., Lu, Q., et al. (2026) · ALPHA PSYCHIATRY · doi:10.31083/ap52350
Treatment-resistant depression in children and adolescents
DeFilippis, M., & Wagner, K. D. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-824067-0.00027-x
Galling, B., Wu, J., Oberstadt, A., Dück, A., Xiao, L., Prehn‐Kristensen, A., & Lehr, D. (2026) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-026-03146-9
Gandhi, S., Craig, S. S., & Gordon, M. (2024) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/00048674241268229
Usami, M., Ito, M., Sasaki, Y., Ishida, M., Inoue, S., Mikami, K., Tsujii, N., Kihara, H., & Satake, N. (2025) · Global Health & Medicine · doi:10.35772/ghm.2025.01073
ESTRATÉGIAS E IMPLICAÇÕES NO MANEJO TERAPÊUTICO DO QUADRO DEPRESSIVO NA INFÂNCIA E ADOLESCÊNCIA
Silva, J. S., Neves, F. D. D. S., de Medeiros, M. L. D., et al. (2024) · Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences · doi:10.36557/2674-8169.2024v6n5p1568-1590
Sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve adolescent depression: A pragmatic clinical trial
He, Y., Xian, Y., Li, X., Qiu, T., Jiang, X., Wang, T., Wen, Y., Qin, B., Teng, T., Li, Y., et al. (2026) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2026.121511
Self-citationA INFLUÊNCIA DO MEIO AMBIENTE SOCIALMENTE CONSTRUÍDO NA SAÚDE MENTAL DAS ADOLESCENTES
Fernandes, K. A., Balbinot, E. N., Silveira, E. R., Fontanella, R. S. P., Franczak, P. F., & Pinto, L. H. (2026) · Arquivos Catarinenses de Medicina · doi:10.63845/6d6kry87
Tandonnet, L., Braconnier, A., & Marcelli, D. (2026) · Encyclopédie médico-chirurgicale. Psychiatrie · doi:10.1016/s0246-1072(26)45841-1
Mai, J., Zhou, T., Wang, C., Ye, J., Chen, J., Wang, W., Pan, Y., Wei, Y., Yuan, L., Yang, H., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1491410
Mirtazapine as a Treatment for Adolescent Depression and PTSD in Juvenile Detention Settings
Li, R., Cicalese, A., & Whitney, E. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000001905
Wissenschaft und Pseudowissenschaft in der klinischen Psychologie
Mundorf, A., Peterburs, J., & Ocklenburg, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-73259-5_1
de Paulo, I. C. B., da Silva, I. D. A., de Oliveira, M. M., Botelho, M. F. D. A., Braga, P. W., Damasceno, R. D., & de Oliveira, J. R. (2026) · Research Society and Development · doi:10.33448/rsd-v15i5.51057
Wang, Y., Yan, W., Bai, C., Liu, X.-X., Wang, Z., Zhong, Y., Yuan, Y.-G., Guo, R.-J., & Lu, L. (2026) · World Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.5498/wjp.117709
Mitchell, S. B., Berry, V., Westbrook, J., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2025.12.03.25341537
Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder 2025 (III): Child and Adolescent
Yang, C.-M., Shim, S.-H., Bahk, W., Seo, J. S., Kim, N.-Y., Choi, W.-S., Woo, Y. S., Park, S., Kim, W., Lee, J. G., et al. (2025) · 신경정신의학 · doi:10.4306/jknpa.2025.64.3.200
Kryst, J., Chocyk, A., Solarz, A., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.12.11.627921
Zhang, J., Liang, J., Xu, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, M., Yang, Z., Jin, L., Chen, S. H., Zhao, Y., & Hu, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2026.1806547
Safety of Antidepressants: Analysis of the Russian Database of Spontaneous Reports
Gomon, Y. М., Анатольевна, Л. В., Колбин, А. С., Витальевич, Г. К., Незнанов, Н. Г., & Sultanova, F. М. (2025) · Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.30895/2312-7821-2025-521
Principles and standards for medication management of individuals with serious mental illness
Smith, T. E., & Hendrick, D. C. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780198898818.003.0015
Depression during adolescence: An examination of treatment outcomes through an intersectional lens
Morgan, M. M., Bradley‐Klug, K. L., Nadeau, J. M., & Ferron, J. R. (2021) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e506962022-001
Park, J.-I., Lee, S., Choo, E.-A., Kim, S.-J., Kim, S. S., Na, S. H., Lee, S. I., & Lee, J. (2026) · BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies · doi:10.1186/s12906-026-05392-5 · Cited by 1
Tsai, S., Hsu, J.-W., Huang, K., Bai, Y., Su, T., Chen, T., & Chen, M. (2023) · CNS Spectrums · doi:10.1017/s1092852922001213 · Cited by 1
Kuhney, F. S., Mittal, V. A., & Damme, K. S. F. (2026) · JAACAP Open · doi:10.1016/j.jaacop.2025.12.006
Hearn, B., von Lucadou, A., Rauh, R., & Fleischhaker, C. (2026) · Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie · doi:10.1024/1422-4917/a001075
Zhao, B., Fan, Y., Ma, Q., Zhang, J., Jin, X., Peng, Y., Xi, W., Wang, J., Yang, J., Wang, S., et al. (2026) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-026-03752-8
Amiri, D., Shah, S. J., Briziarelli, L., Amiri, S., Karlsson, B., & Vakili, A. Z. (2026) · The European Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ejpsy.2026.100371
Mood Disorders in Prader-Willi Syndrome
Singh, D. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108886727.011
Suicidality associated with the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents
Gutiérrez‐Valencia, M., Leache, L., & Saiz, L. C. (2021) · Boletín de información farmacoterapéutica de Navarra · doi:10.54095/bitn20212903en · Cited by 1
Hernández-Abrego, A., Vázquez-Gómez, E., Mejía-Piedras, J., & García‐Colunga, J. (2025) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2025.110736
Meet the Editorial Board Member
Ravindran, A. V. (2022) · Current Drug Therapy · doi:10.2174/157488551701220413084611
Self-citationYao, X., Pu, J., Fan, Y., Jiang, X., Zhao, H., Wang, Y., Ye, Y., Wei, Y., & Yang, L. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110995
Self-citationAnsia e depressione nell’ambulatorio del pediatra delle cure primarie
Panza, C. (2023) · QUADERNI ACP · doi:10.53141/peqacp.2023.5.am1
Life span-related mental health disorders and cognitive behavioral therapy
Rajendram, R., Patel, V. B., & Preedy, V. R. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-85757-4.00003-1 · Cited by 1
Prevalence of Cognitive Distortion Markers in a Suicide Prevention Chat Service: Mixed Methods Study
ten Thij, M., Mérelle, S. Y. M., Gilissen, R., & Bollen, J. (2026) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/81213
Chen, H., Zhang, X., Hong, S., Yu, Z., & Chen, W. (2026) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2026.121940
Lyus, R. J., Naudet, F., van Valkenhoef, G., & Plöderl, M. (2026) · Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods · doi:10.1002/cesm.70108 · Cited by 1
Follow-Up and Follow-Through after Discharge and Early Intervention Services
Hintz, S. R., Lakshmanan, A., Litt, J. S., & Mcmanus, B. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009418034.054
Taurines, R., & Gerlach, M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-65267-1_5
Predicting the hospitalization burdens of patients with mental disease: a multiple model comparison
Hou, L., Zhang, J., Li, L., Weng, Y., Yang, Z., & Liu, Z. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1474786
A Critique of the Cass Review and the Implications of “Gender Restrictive Care”
Moser, C. A. (2025) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-025-03345-6
Zang, W., Wu, J., Liu, N., Fang, M., Xiao, N., Wu, J., Liu, J., & Zhang, Q. (2026) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-026-03075-3
Maneeton, B., Maneeton, N., Pojanapotha, P., Putthisri, S., Oon‐arom, A., Karawekpanyawong, N., Kawilapat, S., Maneeton, P., & Srichan, K. (2026) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s595606
Mobile Apps for Improving Mental Health in Teens and Young Adults
Грибкова, И. В. (2025) · City Healthcare · doi:10.47619/2713-2617.zm.2025.v.6i2;64-73
dos Santos, D. B., Ramos, L., & Freire, A. S. A. (2026) · Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo · doi:10.55905/cuadv18n5-009
Steinmair, D., Prevendar, T., Milic, B., Hochgerner, M., & Löffler‐Stastka, H. (2021) · psychopraxis neuropraxis · doi:10.1007/s00739-021-00696-2
Song, J., Zhao, L., Zhou, S., Wan, Q., Lv, H., & Nie, Y. (2026) · Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications · doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2026.153771
Higson‐Sweeney, N., Dunn, B. D., Marshall, N., Cooper, K., Reynolds, S. A., Goodyer, I. M., & Loades, M. E. (2026) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-026-04942-3
Hidalgo-Padilla, L., Flores, S., Vargas‐Fernández, R., Ariza-Salazar, K., Lucchetti, S. C., Vilela-Estrada, A. L., Uribe-Restrepo, J. M., Carbonetti, F. L., Ramirez-Meneses, D., Gómez–Restrepo, C., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4930992/v1
Suicidalitet relatert til SSRI ved behandling av depresjon hos barn og unge – en litteraturstudie
Leines, H. F., & Høye, A. (2021) · Suicidologi/Nytt i suicidologi · doi:10.5617/suicidologi.8918
Alloy, L. B., Chat, I. K.-Y., Grehl, M. M., Kautz, M. M., Dunning, E. E., Adogli, Z. V., Smith, L. T., Walsh, R. F. L., & Stephenson, A. R. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818697-8.00225-9
Ko, Y., Lee, C., Wu, C.-S., & Huang, Y. (2025) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2025.11.013 · Cited by 1
Türkmen, C., Sacu, S., Furukawa, Y., de Cates, A. N., Schoevers, R. A., Kamphuis, J., Chevance, A., Weisz, J. R., Emslie, G. J., Strawn, J. R., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.04.02.25324485
Self-citationRyszkiewicz, P., Baranowska‐Kuczko, M., Malinowska, B., & Schlicker, E. (2026) · Pharmacological Reports · doi:10.1007/s43440-026-00879-x
Dong, L., Luo, F., Qi, R.-B., Yan, P., Wang, S.-Q., Wang, S., & Song, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4622458
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, X., Teng, T., Zhang, Y., Del Giovane, C., Furukawa, T. A., Weisz, J. R., Li, X., Cuijpers, P., Coghill, D., Xiang, Y., Hetrick, S. E., Leucht, S., Qin, M., Barth, J., Ravindran, A. V., Yang, L., Curry, J., Fan, L., Silva, S. G., Cipriani, A., & Xie, P.
- Affiliations
- The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN)
- Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN)
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Harvard University (US)
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
- Duke University (US)
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Xie, Peng
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 581-601
- ISSN
- 2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7303954
- OpenAlex
- W2959400609
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 62 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 5.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
- IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005)
- NIHR Clinical Research Network Thames Valley and South Midlands
- College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
- Janssen Canada
- Royal Society
- Angelini Pharma
- Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland
- Fondazione Cariplo
- National Institute for Health Research (RP-2017-08-ST2-006)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81701342, 81873800)
- National Basic Research Program of China (2017YFA0505700)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- antidepressants, psychotherapy, childhood depression, adolescent depression, depressive disorders, fluoxetine, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, combination therapy, antidepressant efficacy, treatment acceptability, treatment discontinuation, placebo response, comparative treatment effectiveness, network meta-analysis ranking, treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, children and adolescents
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Antidepressive Agents, Child, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
