Probiotics for adults with major depressive disorder compared with antidepressants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite recent advances in antidepressants in treating major depression (MDD), their usage is marred by adverse effects and social stigmas. Probiotics may be an efficacious adjunct or standalone treatment, potentially circumventing the aforementioned issues with antidepressants. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials between these 2 interventions. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and acceptability of these 2 interventions in treating MDD. DATA SOURCES: Six databases and registry platforms for the clinical trial were systematically searched to identify the eligible double-blinded, randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2022. DATA EXACTION: Two authors selected independently the placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants and microbiota-targeted interventions (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) used for the treatment of MDD in adults (≥18 years old). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depressive symptom scores from individual trials were pooled for network meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42020222305). RESULTS: Forty-two eligible trials covering 22 interventions were identified, of which 16 were found to be effective in MDD treatment and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. When all trials were considered, compared with placebo, SMDs of interventions ranged from -0.16 (95% credible interval: -0.30, -0.04) for venlafaxine to -0.81 (-1.06, -0.52) for escitalopram. Probiotics were superior to brexpiprazole (SMD [95% credible interval]: -0.42 [-0.68, -0.17]), cariprazine (-0.44 [-0.69, -0.24]), citalopram (-0.37 [-0.66, -0.07]), duloxetine (-0.26, [-0.51, -0.04]), desvenlafaxine (-0.38 [-0.63, -0.14]), ketamine (-0.32 [-0.66, -0.01]), venlafaxine (-0.47 [-0.73, -0.23]), vilazodone (-0.37 [-0.61, -0.12]), vortioxetine (-0.39 [-0.63, -0.15]), and placebo (-0.62 [-0.86, -0.42]), and were noninferior to other antidepressants. In addition, probiotics ranked the second highest in the treatment hierarchy after escitalopram. Long-term treatment (≥8 weeks) using probiotics showed the same tolerability as antidepressants. CONCLUSION: Probiotics, compared with antidepressants and placebo, may be efficacious as an adjunct or standalone therapy for treating MDD. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020222305.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".