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
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.
Related
- Fluoxetine Hydrochloride Treatment Influences Site-Specific ADAR Editing and Transcriptome Regulation in Arid1b +/- Mice
- Personalized prediction of response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) treatment for major depression disorder using deep learning networks from connectivity maps of EEG
- Exploring the association between bullying and depression symptoms among adolescents in Bangladesh: Findings from nationally representative survey
- Edge controllability is associated with treatment response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression.
- Esketamine for Treatment-Resistant Depression
BibTeX
@article{lyus2026reappraisal,
title = {{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}},
author = {Richard Lyus and Florian Naudet and Gert van Valkenhoef and Martin Plöderl},
journal = {Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/cesm.70108},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05780273v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - 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
AU - Richard Lyus
AU - Florian Naudet
AU - Gert van Valkenhoef
AU - Martin Plöderl
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
DO - 10.1002/cesm.70108
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05780273v1
AB - 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.
SN - 2832-9023
SN - 2832-9023
ER -