# Synthesis of depression outcomes reported on different scales: A comparison of methods for modelling mean differences

**Authors:** Beatrice C. Downing, Nicky J. Welton, Hugo Pedder, Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, Odette Megnin-Viggars, A.E. Ades

PMC · DOI: 10.1017/rsm.2025.7 · Research Synthesis Methods · 2025-03-17

## TL;DR

This study compares different statistical methods for synthesizing depression treatment outcomes reported on various scales to determine which method best captures treatment effectiveness.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comparison of RoM and SMD methods in a Bayesian network meta-analysis of depression treatments.

## Key findings

- RoM models showed better fit and lower heterogeneity compared to SMD models.
- Study-SMD had the highest heterogeneity, while RoM had the lowest shrinkage at 20.5%.
- All models identified the same top three treatments using GRADE criteria.

## Abstract

Several methods have been proposed for the synthesis of continuous outcomes reported on different scales, including the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) and the Ratio of Means (RoM). SMDs can be formed by dividing the study mean treatment effect either by a study-specific (Study-SMD) or a scale-specific (Scale-SMD) standard deviation (SD). We compared the performance of RoM to the different standardisation methods with and without meta-regression (MR) on baseline severity, in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of 14 treatments for depression, reported on five different scales. There was substantial between-study variation in the SDs reported on the same scale. Based on the Deviance Information Criterion, RoM was preferred as having better model fit than the SMD models. Model fit for SMD models was not improved with meta-regression. Percentage shrinkage was used as a scale-independent measure with higher % shrinkage indicating lower heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was lowest for RoM (20.5% shrinkage), then Scale-SMD (18.2% shrinkage), and highest for Study-SMD (16.7% shrinkage). Model choice impacted which treatment was estimated to be most effective. However, all models picked out the same three highest-ranked treatments using the GRADE criteria. Alongside other indicators, higher shrinkage of RoM models suggests that treatments for depression act multiplicatively rather than additively. Further research is needed to determine whether these findings extend to Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes used in other application areas. Where treatment effects are additive, we recommend using Scale-SMD for standardisation to avoid the additional heterogeneity introduced by Study-SMD.

## Linked entities

- **Diseases:** depression (MONDO:0002050)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** Depression (MESH:D003866), SMDs (MESH:C537501), RoM (MESH:D009800), Vague (MESH:D020421), Anxiety (MESH:D001007), psychiatric (MESH:D001523), MID (MESH:D000076263)
- **Chemicals:** trazodone (MESH:D014196), Amitriptyline (MESH:D000639), lofepramine (MESH:D008127), Mirtazapine (MESH:D000078785), nortriptyline (MESH:D009661)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12527519/full.md

## Figures

50 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12527519/full.md

## References

54 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12527519/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12527519