Table 2

League table of association between pharmacologic treatments and changes in depressive symptom severity

Methylphenidate−0.86 (−1.77 to 0.04)−0.91 (−1.55 to −0.28)*
−0.09 (−1.84 to 1.66)Desipramine−0.82 (−2.44 to 0.81)
−0.41 (−1.64 to 0.82)−0.32 (−2.29 to 1.66)Escitalopram−0.50 (−1.53 to 0.54)
−0.65 (−1.26 to −0.03)*−0.55 (−2.23 to 1.12)−0.24 (−1.35 to 0.88)Sertraline−0.28 (−0.54 to −0.02)*
−0.74 (−1.60 to 0.11)−0.65 (−2.42 to 1.12)−0.33 (−1.59 to 0.92)−0.10 (−0.79 to 0.59)Atomoxetine−0.16 (−0.71 to 0.39)
−0.95 (−1.77 to −0.12)*−0.86 (−2.61 to 0.90)−0.54 (−1.77 to 0.69)−0.30 (−0.95 to 0.35)−0.20 (−1.06 to 0.66)Melatonin0.04 (−0.45 to 0.53)
−0.91 (−1.49 to −0.33)*−0.81 (−2.47 to 0.84)−0.50 (−1.58 to 0.59)−0.26 (−0.54 to 0.01)−0.16 (−0.79 to 0.47)0.04 (−0.54 to 0.63)Placebo
  • CI = confidence interval; SMD = standardized mean difference.

  • Results of pair-wise (right side of row) and network (left side of row) meta-analysis are presented as estimate effect sizes for postintervention depressive severity. Interventions are reported in order of mean ranking of treatment effect, and outcomes are expressed as SMD (95% CI). For pair-wise meta-analyses, an SMD of less than 0 indicates that the treatment specified in the row led to better improvement in depressive severity than the treatment specified in the column. For network meta-analysis, an SMD of less than 0 indicates that the treatment specified in the column led to better improvement in depressive severity than the treatment specified in the row.

  • * Statistically significant (p < 0.05).