Placebo Response of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Trials in Major Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open Access
- 18 March 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 4 (3) , e4824
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004824
Abstract
Although meta-analyses have shown that placebo responses are large in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) trials; the placebo response of devices such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has not been systematically assessed. We proposed to assess placebo responses in two categories of MDD trials: pharmacological (antidepressant drugs) and non-pharmacological (device- rTMS) trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from April 2002 to April 2008, searching MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scielo and CRISP electronic databases and reference lists from retrieved studies and conference abstracts. We used the keywords placebo and depression and escitalopram for pharmacological studies; and transcranial magnetic stimulation and depression and sham for non-pharmacological studies. All randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel articles on major depressive disorder were included. Forty-one studies met our inclusion criteria - 29 in the rTMS arm and 12 in the escitalopram arm. We extracted the mean and standard values of depression scores in the placebo group of each study. Then, we calculated the pooled effect size for escitalopram and rTMS arm separately, using Cohen's d as the measure of effect size. We found that placebo response are large for both escitalopram (Cohen's d - random-effects model - 1.48; 95%C.I. 1.26 to 1.6) and rTMS studies (0.82; 95%C.I. 0.63 to 1). Exploratory analyses show that sham response is associated with refractoriness and with the use of rTMS as an add-on therapy, but not with age, gender and sham method utilized. We confirmed that placebo response in MDD is large regardless of the intervention and is associated with depression refractoriness and treatment combination (add-on rTMS studies). The magnitude of the placebo response seems to be related with study population and study design rather than the intervention itself.Keywords
This publication has 79 references indexed in Scilit:
- Antidepressant efficacy of high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in double-blind sham-controlled designs: a meta-analysis – CorrigendumPsychological Medicine, 2011
- Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug AdministrationPLoS Medicine, 2008
- Escitalopram in the Acute Treatment of Depressed Patients Aged 60 Years or OlderAmerican Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2008
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent EfficacyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Reporting Methods of Blinding in Randomized Trials Assessing Nonpharmacological TreatmentsPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Which Factors Predict Placebo Response in Anxiety Disorders and Major Depression?The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2006
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for DepressionAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2006
- Shorter duration of depressive episode may predict response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationDepression and Anxiety, 2004
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Published by Elsevier ,1998
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995