Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics, placebo-response rates, and outcome differences in active treatment compared to placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and standard antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies were first identified using searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, restricted to English, by cross-referencing the search term placebo with each of the antidepressants (those that had received letters of approval by the US, Canadian, or EU drug regulatory agencies for the treatment of MDD) and selected CAM agents. These searches were limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and September 15, 2009 (inclusive). Reference lists from identified studies were also searched for studies eligible for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION: We selected RCTs for MDD that included validated diagnostic assessment and baseline/outcome measures of illness severity. Assessment was limited to widely used CAM agents most frequently studied in RCTs with pill placebo: St John's wort, omega-3 fatty acids, and S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe). DATA SYNTHESIS: Of eligible publications, 173 reported results of 1 trial, and 5 included > 1 trial, representing a total of 185 RCTs. Patient variables, including illness severity, were similar across CAM and antidepressant RCTs, except for a higher proportion of women in CAM studies (P = .0003). Random-effects meta-analysis indicated that both antidepressant and CAM monotherapy resulted in superior response rates compared with placebo. Placebo-response rates were significantly lower for patients enrolled in CAM versus antidepressant RCTs (P = .002). Meta-regression analyses yielded no significant differences in the relative risk of prematurely discontinuing therapy due to any reason between active treatment and placebo for antidepressant and CAM RCTs, although discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in antidepressant RCTs compared to CAM RCTs (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Participants in CAM trials were more likely to be female and to have a lower placebo-response rate compared to those in standard antidepressant trials for MDD. Trials of standard antidepressants and CAM therapies were composed of patients with similar depression severity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".