Abstract:Abstract Background The issue of unblinded outcome-assessors and patients has repeatedly been stressed as a flaw in allegedly double-blind antidepressant trials. Unblinding bias can for example result from a drug‘s marked side effects. If such unblinding bias is present for a given drug, then it might be expected that the placebos of that drug are rated significantly less effective than that of other antidepressants. Methods To test this hypothesis, the present exploratory analysis conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of 19 different placebos in placebo-controlled trials provided in the dataset by Cipriani et al. (Lancet 2018; 391: 1357–66). Primary outcome was efficacy (continuous) estimated on the standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and defined as the pre-post change on the Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD-17), on which information was available in N = 258 trials. Results Comparative placebo ranking suggested mirtazapine-placebo (SMD -2.0 [− 5.0–1.0 95% CrI]) to be the most, and amitriptyline- (SMD 1.2 [− 1.6–3.9 95% CrI]) and trazodone- (SMD 2.1 [− 0.9–5.2 95% CrI]) placebos to be the least effective placebos. Other placebos suggested to be more effective than amitriptyline- and trazodone-placebos (based on 95% CrIs excluding zero) were citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine placebos. These NMA results were corroborated by the observation that the relative efficacy between drug and placebo was considerably larger for amitriptyline and trazodone than for instance mirtazapine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine, supported by a small and insignificant correlation between drug-efficacy and placebo-efficacy (r = − 0.202, p = 0.408). Discussion The present exploratory NMA indicates that distinguishable side effects of older drugs may unblind outcome-assessors thus resulting in overestimation of the average drug-placebo difference and underrating bias in placebo-arms, particularly for the older antidepressant drugs amitriptyline and trazodone. If confirmed in prospective studies, these findings suggest that efficacy rankings for antidepressants are susceptible to bias and should be considered unreliable or misleading. The analysis is limited by the focus on the single-comparison placebos (76%, i.e., placebos assessed in two-arm trials), since double-comparison placebos (25%, i.e., placebos assessed in three-arm trials) are hard to interpret and therefore not included in the present interpretation. Another limitation is the problem of multiplicity, which was only approximately accounted for in the Bayesian NMA by modelling treatment effects as exchangeable.

Reply to: Toward Enhanced Methodological Rigor: Addressing Limitations in the Comparative Analysis of Probiotics and Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder Management

Toward Enhanced Methodological Rigor: Addressing Limitations in the Comparative Analysis of Probiotics and Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder Management

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

Probiotics as Adjunctive Treatment in Major Depressive Disorder: Estimates of Treatment Effect and Underlying Mechanisms From a Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomised Pilot Trial

Side effect profile and comparative tolerability of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression in adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis

Potential of Probiotics As an Adjunct for Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Effect of Probiotic Supplementation on Gut Microbiota in Patients with Major Depressive Disorders: A Systematic Review

Comparative Efficacy of Placebos in Short-Term Antidepressant Trials for Major Depression: a Secondary Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials

Current Insights into the Use of Probiotics and Fatty Acids in Alleviating Depression

A meta-analysis of the use of probiotics to alleviate depressive symptoms

Metabolic Status Influences Probiotic Efficacy for Depression—PRO-DEMET Randomized Clinical Trial Results

The Gut Microbiome in Depression and Potential Benefit of Prebiotics, Probiotics and Synbiotics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials and Observational Studies

The Effect of Probiotics on Obesity with Comorbid Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Therapeutic effects of probiotics on symptoms of depression in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol and Rationale-The Efficacy of Minocycline As an Adjunctive Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder: A Double Blind, Randomised, Placebo Controlled Trial

Efficacy and tolerability of minocycline in depressive patients with or without treatment-resistant: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Meta-Analysis of Placebo Response in Adult Antidepressant Trials

Efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of unipolar major depression: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of double-blind randomised controlled trials

Is Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Relevant for Antidepressant Drug Therapy? Implications From a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Focus on Moderating Factors

Efficacy of bifidobacterium-related preparations on depression: the first meta-analysis

A network meta‐analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression