Sure, this one probably comes closest to what you’re looking for. Looks like modest benefit. Nothing super effective but enough to make a positive difference generally. I definitely recognize that they can have side effects, so decisions should be personalized.
At least in the first study, they did an analysis of the non-pharm funded studies and saw some good results. Unfortunately that’s pretty much the best we can go off of.
Sure, this one probably comes closest to what you’re looking for. Looks like modest benefit. Nothing super effective but enough to make a positive difference generally. I definitely recognize that they can have side effects, so decisions should be personalized.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13541
There are some other older ones done before 2022 as well like this one.
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.focus.16407
For this one:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13541
Going into the actual paper…
10 low bias studies, 2935 subjects.
12 high bias studies, 3547 subjects.
24 unclear bias studies, 9689 subjects.
Cool, so the vast majority of analyzed subjects were not from studies that could be established as having a low bias.
Oh hey, remember when I asked for a meta study that didn’t include studies done by or funded by drug manufacturers?
Ok, so you obviously either did not read what I asked for, or you didn’t read the paper.
Further, I said long-term, only 7 of the 42 studies are about maintenence stage, you know, long term.
And…
Wow! Amazing!
This study does not even kind of come close to the conditions I specifically laid out.
… Onto study number 2.
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.focus.16407
Cool, 18% of the studied trials were low bias this time, roughly in line with the other meta study.
Awesome.
At least in the first study, they did an analysis of the non-pharm funded studies and saw some good results. Unfortunately that’s pretty much the best we can go off of.