Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies

Open access
Taylor, D., Sparshatt, A., Varma, S., Olofinjana, O.·2014·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published and unpublished efficacy studies of agomelatine in people with depression. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Literature search (Pubmed, Embase, Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory file for agomelatine, manufacturers of agomelatine (Servier). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Double blind randomised placebo and comparator controlled trials of agomelatine in depression with standard depression rating scales. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies were pooled by using a random effects model with DerSimonian and Laird weights for comparisons with placebo and comparator antidepressant. The primary efficacy measure (change in rating scale score) was summarised with standardised mean difference (SMD; a measure of effect size) and secondary outcome measures with relative risks. All results were presented with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity was explored by visual inspection of funnel plots and by the I(2) statistic. Moderators of effect were explored by meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 20 trials with 7460 participants meeting inclusion criteria (11 in the published literature, four from the European Medicines Agency file, and five from the manufacturer). Almost all studies used the 17 item Hamilton depression rating scale (score 0-50). Agomelatine was significantly more effective than placebo with an effect size (SMD) of 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.35) and relative risk of response 1.25 (1.11 to 1.4). Compared with other antidepressants, agomelatine showed equal efficacy (SMD 0.00, -0.09 to 0.10). Significant heterogeneity was uncovered in most analyses, though risk of bias was low. Published studies were more likely than unpublished studies to have results that suggested advantages for agomelatine. CONCLUSIONS: Agomelatine is an effective antidepressant with similar efficacy to standard antidepressants. Published trials generally had more favourable results than unpublished studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.g1888

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, D., Sparshatt, A., Varma, S., & Olofinjana, O.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-03-19
Volume
348
Issue
mar19 5
Pages
g1888-g1888
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068597369
Cited by
334
References
60
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.g1888
The paper
Taylor, D., Sparshatt, A., Varma, S., & Olofinjana, O. (2014). Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1888

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.