ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
A Re-Appraisal of Three Network Meta-Analyses to Explain the Discrepancy in Findings for the Efficacy of Fluoxetine for the Treatment of Depression in Children and Adolescents.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explain discrepant findings for fluoxetine's efficacy in three influential network meta-analyses (NMAs) of treatments for pediatric depression, which led to conflicting clinical recommendations. Design: Critical appraisal and re-analysis of three published NMAs. Data Sources: NMAs published in two Lancet journals and by Cochrane, together with the trial datasets reported therein. Data Synthesis: We compared efficacy estimates for fluoxetine versus placebo across NMAs. We identified and assessed an outlying trial included only in the Lancet NMAs using the INSPECT-SR instrument, and re-analyzed the NMAs with and without this trial. Results: The larger effects reported in the Lancet NMAs (SMD -0.51, 95% CrI -0.99 to -0.03; and -0.51, -0.84 to -0.18) were driven by an inconsistent fluoxetine-placebo-nortriptyline loop, which the original NMA authors could not explain. We identified the cause of the inconsistency as a small outlier trial of fluoxetine versus nortriptyline that reported an implausibly large effect size (SMD > 4) favoring fluoxetine, and which was not included in the Cochrane NMA. Excluding this trial from the Lancet NMA datasets resolved the inconsistency and yielded efficacy estimates for fluoxetine that closely matched the Cochrane NMA (SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.28 to -0.11). The outlier trial also showed multiple methodological concerns suggesting low trustworthiness. Conclusion: Discrepancies between the three NMAs were explained by the indirect influence of a single small trial with extreme and unreliable results. Removing this trial reconciled the Lancet NMAs with the Cochrane NMA, yielding a more reliable estimate of fluoxetine efficacy versus placebo. It also resolved the inconsistency. This case illustrates how inclusion of a single small problematic trial can substantially distort the clinically important results of NMAs. Our findings may alter the clinical risk/benefit assessment of fluoxetine for this indication. Other: No specific funding was involved in the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.