Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41235115›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Comparative safety and tolerability of ketamine and esketamine for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haoning Guo, Liling Tang, Miaoquan He, Wencheng Tang, Jing Liu, Silin Wu, Shuying Yuan, Jisheng Wang, Xueli Tang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Haoning GuoDivision of Psychopharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Liling TangCollege of pharmacy, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Miaoquan HeDivision of Psychopharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Wencheng TangDivision of Psychopharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Jing LiuDepartment of Pathology, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Silin WuDivision of Psychopharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Shuying YuanDivision of Psychopharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Jisheng Wang *Division of Psychopharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.
Xueli Tang *Department of Scientific Research Management, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ketamine and esketamine have demonstrated rapid, short-term antidepressant effects in major depressive disorder (MDD), but their relative safety remains unclear. This review aims to update the evidence on the safety of two agents for MDD and indirectly compare their safety and tolerability. Method: We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 1 May 2025. Eligible studies compared ketamine or esketamine with placebo, active psychotropic agents, or electroconvulsive therapy in adults with MDD. Results: We retrieved 5,473 articles, 47 of which met the inclusion criteria. For ketamine versus placebo, both dropout and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) were statistically significant, with number needed to harm (NNH) values of 12 and 2, respectively. A similar pattern of effect sizes was found for esketamine, but with higher corresponding NNH values. Conversely, neither the meta-analysis nor NNH analyses of the incidence of serious AEs for ketamine and esketamine were statistically significant. A series of AEs like dizziness, dissociation, nausea, vertigo, and vision blurred, with relatively low NNH values, would be more likely to occur in clinical practice and exhibit dose-dependent effects. Moreover, ketamine or esketamine was associated with transient and significant psychiatric side-effects, blood pressure increases, and sedation post-dose. No significant abnormalities were observed in cognitive impairments, laboratory results, bladder symptoms, nasal examination, or addiction-related evaluations for either drug. Conclusion: Although further promising evidence supports the safety of ketamine and esketamine for MDD, the findings of this study highlight a potential tolerability advantage with esketamine over ketamine for short-term use for MDD. These findings require further validation through direct head-to-head clinical trials comparing these two drugs. Systematic Review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023389486.

Indexed as

esketamineketaminemajor depressive disordermeta-analysissafetyunipolar depression

Identifiers

PMID41235115
PMCPMC12605052

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.