Abstract
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.