MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390858196 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuad171

Probiotics for adults with major depressive disorder compared with antidepressants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4390858196 on OpenAlexaff
Shilin Zhao, Suisha Liang, Jun Tao, Peng Ye, Siqi Chen, Hogan Kok-Fung Wai, Feng-Ying Chung, Zhen Ye Sin, Matthew K L Wong, Andrea M. Haqq, Wing Chung Chang, Michael Y. Ni, Francis K.L. Chan, Siew C. Ng, Hein M. Tun

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHealth and Medical Research FundFood and Health BureauAstraZeneca
KeywordsEscitalopramMajor depressive disorderMedicineMeta-analysisPlaceboContext (archaeology)VenlafaxineInternal medicineSertralineDuloxetineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionPsychiatryDepression (economics)Systematic reviewCitalopramMoodAntidepressantMEDLINEAnxietyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207