Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrunoni, André Russowsky
dc.contributor.authorLopes, Mariana
dc.contributor.authorKaptchuk, Ted Jack
dc.contributor.authorFregni, Felipe
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-30T15:21:59Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationBrunoni, André Russowsky, Mariana Lopes, Ted Jack Kaptchuk, and Felipe Fregni. 2009. Placebo response of non-pharmacological and pharmacological trials in major depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4824.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10246811
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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. Methodology/Principal Findings: 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. Conclusions/Significance: 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.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004824en_US
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653635/pdf/en_US
dash.licenseLAA
dc.titlePlacebo Response of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Trials in Major Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.relation.journalPLoS ONEen_US
dash.depositing.authorKaptchuk, Ted Jack
dc.date.available2013-01-30T15:21:59Z
dash.affiliation.otherHMS^Global Health and Social Medicineen_US
dash.affiliation.otherHMS^Medicine- Beth Israel-Deaconessen_US
dash.affiliation.otherHMS^Neurology- Beth Israel-Deaconessen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0004824*
dash.contributor.affiliatedFregni, Felipe
dash.contributor.affiliatedKaptchuk, Ted


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record