Search

Background: Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are considered third‐line treatments for treatment resistant depression; however, they are underused in clinical practice. Aims: This study aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of MAOIs for the treatment of depression in comparison with other antidepressant treatments. Methods: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomised clinical trials was performed to compare the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability between MAOIs and other antidepressant treatments for the treatment of depressive episodes. Results: A total of 83 double‐blinded, randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis, with 7765 participants assigned to an active treatment and 1844 assigned to placebo. Several MAOIs, including isocarboxazid, phenelzine, tranylcypromine and moclobemide, showed significantly higher efficacy compared with placebo. The tolerability and acceptability of MAOIs was comparable to other antidepressants. Limitations: A disproportionate number of studies investigating the most commonly used MAOIs, such as moclobemide and phenelzine, and a lack of specific studies focusing on treatment‐resistant and atypical depression. Conclusions: MAOIs are similar in efficacy to other antidepressants for the treatment of depression. However, more studies are needed comparing MAOI treatment in people with treatment‐resistant, atypical and bipolar depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To investigate and address the evidence gap on the effectiveness of co-creation/production in international health research. Methods An initial systematic search of previous reviews published by 22 July 2017 in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. We extracted reported aims, elements and outcomes of co-creation/production from 50 reviews; however, reviews rarely tested effectiveness against intended outcomes. We therefore checked the reference lists in 13 included systematic reviews that cited quantitative studies involving the public/patients in the design and/or implementation of research projects to conduct meta-analyses on their effectiveness using standardized mean difference (SMD). Results Twenty-six primary studies were included, showing moderate positive effects for community functions (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI = 0.29–0.84, n  = 11) and small positive effects for physical health (SMD = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07–0.42, n  = 9), health-promoting behaviour (SMD = 0.14, 95%CI = 0.03–0.26, n  = 11), self-efficacy (SMD = 0.34, 95%CI = 0.01–0.67, n  = 3) and health service access/receipt (SMD = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.21–0.52, n  = 12). Non-academic stakeholders that co-created more than one research stage showed significantly favourable mental health outcomes. However, co-creation was rarely extended to later stages (evaluation/dissemination), with few studies specifically with ethnic minority groups. Conclusions The co-creation of research may improve several health-related outcomes and public health more broadly, but research is lacking on its longer term effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]