MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408070484 · doi:10.1002/npr2.70008

Efficacy of Pharmacological Interventions in Milder Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4408070484 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychopharmacology Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchH. Lundbeck A/SMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationNakatani Foundation for Advancement of Measuring Technologies in Biomedical EngineeringTeijin PharmaMeiji Seika PharmaShionogiSENSHIN Medical Research FoundationEli Lilly and CompanyOno PharmaceuticalEisaiEA Pharma Co., Ltd.Boehringer Ingelheim JapanMylanKowa CompanyDaiichi Sankyo EuropeJapanese Society of Clinical NeuropsychopharmacologyDainippon Sumitomo PharmaPfizerJapan Research Foundation for Clinical PharmacologyTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyOtsuka PharmaceuticalJapan Agency for Medical Research and DevelopmentMinistry of Health, Labour and WelfareBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsMeta-analysisDepression (economics)Psychological interventionPsychologySystematic reviewMedicinePsychotherapistMEDLINEPsychiatryInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild depression lacks a consistent definition across diagnostic criteria and rating scales, posing challenges to standardizing treatment strategies. International guidelines predominantly recommend psychotherapy as the first-line treatment for mild depression, while the use of antidepressants remains contentious. Supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids, St. John's Wort, and magnesium have garnered attention as alternative therapeutic options for depression. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of pharmacological interventions, including supplements, in the treatment of mild depression. METHODS: Comprehensive searches were performed in PubMed and Embase through November 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacotherapy or supplements for mild depression diagnosed using standardized criteria. Eligible studies underwent screening and risk of bias assessment utilizing the ROB2 tool. Data on remission rates, symptom improvement, dropout rates, and adverse events were extracted, with meta-analyses conducted where applicable. RESULTS: Eight RCTs comprising 1049 participants met inclusion criteria. Among the agents studied, St. John's Wort was analyzed in two trials, both comparing it to fluoxetine. A meta-analysis found no significant difference in response rates between the two treatments (risk ratio [RR] = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78-1.18) or dropout rates (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.62-1.88). For other agents, single studies evaluated their effects. Eicosapentaenoic acid and Rhodiola rosea demonstrated significant improvements in depressive symptoms compared to placebo. In non-blinded trials, magnesium chloride showed efficacy in alleviating depressive symptoms. Other interventions, such as lavender, lemon balm, and transcranial electroacupuncture stimulation, were as effective as antidepressants. Conversely, S-adenosylmethionine did not produce significant improvements relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates that certain supplements, such as eicosapentaenoic acids and Rhodiola rosea, are therapeutic options for mild depression. However, no RCTs compared antidepressants directly to placebo for mild depression. The paucity of high-quality RCTs exclusively targeting mild depression limits definitive conclusions, warranting further rigorous research.

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.

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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.358 · 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