Cited by 192Treatment of Major DepressionPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for major depressive disorder: review of systematic reviews

Open access
Gartlehner, Gerald, Wagner, Gernot, Matyas, Nina, Titscher, Viktoria, Greimel, Judith, Lux, Linda, Gaynes, Bradley N, Viswanathan, Meera +2 more·2017·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to summarise the evidence on more than 140 pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD) and to evaluate the confidence that patients and clinicians can have in the underlying science about their effects. Design: This is a review of systematic reviews. Data sources: This study used MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Epistemonikos from 2011 up to February 2017 for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in adult patients with acute-phase MDD. Methods: We dually reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, rated the risk of bias of eligible systematic reviews and graded the strength of evidence. Results: Nineteen systematic reviews provided data on 28 comparisons of interest. For general efficacy, only second-generation antidepressants were supported with high strength evidence, presenting small beneficial treatment effects (standardised mean difference: −0.35; 95% CI −0.31 to −0.38), and a statistically significantly higher rate of discontinuation because of adverse events than patients on placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.28). Only cognitive behavioural therapy is supported by reliable evidence (moderate strength of evidence) to produce responses to treatment similar to those of second-generation antidepressants (45.5% vs 44.2%; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30). All remaining comparisons of non-pharmacological treatments with second-generation antidepressants either led to inconclusive results or had substantial methodological shortcomings (low or insufficient strength of evidence). Conclusions: In contrast to pharmacological treatments, the majority of non-pharmacological interventions for treating patients with MDD are not evidence based. For patients with strong preferences against pharmacological treatments, clinicians should focus on therapies that have been compared directly with antidepressants. Trial registration number: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: 42016035580.

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/bmjopen-2016-014912

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Patients may discontinue chronic treatment due to lack of rapid and consistent treatment benefits, treatment-related adverse events, and expectations of treatment that are misaligned with the treatment goals of HCPs.

    “Patients may discontinue chronic treatment due to lack of rapid and consistent treatment benefits, 37 treatmentrelated adverse events (AEs), [37][38][39][40] and expectations of treatment that are misaligned with the treatment goals of HCPs.41,42”

    From Digital health technologies and major depressive disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [40]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [49]Sorbero ME, Reynolds K, Colaiaco B, et al Acupuncture for major depressive disorder. A systematic review: RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gartlehner, G., Wagner, G., Matyas, N., Titscher, V., Greimel, J., Lux, L., Gaynes, B. N., Viswanathan, M., Patel, S., & Lohr, K. N.
Affiliations
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • RTI International (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Gartlehner, Gerald
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-06
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e014912
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2643196631
Cited by
192
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
major depressive disorder, antidepressants, second-generation antidepressants, cognitive behavioral therapy, non-pharmacological treatment, treatment efficacy, adverse events, quality of evidence, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation

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