Sleep deprivation as a treatment for major depressive episodes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sleep deprivation, alone or in combination with pharmacological treatment and as part of a chronotherapy package, is of potential use for people with major depressive episodes, however the evidence base is still conflicting. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the clinical effects of sleep deprivation in comparison to any other intervention for the acute and long-term treatment of mood disorders. We searched electronic databases and trial registries (last update: 16th October 2021) for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials recruiting participants with a major depressive episode in unipolar or bipolar affective disorder. The clinical outcomes of interest were the reduction in depressive symptoms at different timepoints and the number of participants experiencing at least one side effect. Overall, 29 trials (1246 participants) were included. We did not find any difference in change in symptoms or all-cause discontinuation between interventions including SD compared to a control of the same intervention except without SD. In the included studies there were no available data for adverse events. Using the most methodologically rigorous approach, we did not find evidence that the addition of sleep deprivation to treatment packages leads to enhanced depressive outcomes.

Placebo's invisible brother: a restricted scoping review of the biomedical literature on the nocebo effect.

ABSTRACT: Placebos and their beneficial clinical and psychological effects are well-researched, but nocebo effects receive far less attention, despite being highly undesirable. The aim of this restricted scoping review was to examine how nocebo effects are represented in the biomedical literature and to identify the trends and gaps in existing knowledge. After searching 5 biomedical databases and 2 clinical trials registries (from their inception to December 23, 2020) for articles on nocebo effects or negative placebo effects, 1161 eligible publications were identified. The 2 main publication types were nonsystematic reviews (37.7%) and primary research studies (35.6%); only 85 publications (7.3%) were systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The nonsystematic reviews, many of them heavily opinion-based, may contribute to the amplification of narratives, attitudes, and beliefs about nocebo effects that do not objectively reflect the primary research. The primary research articles often used nocebo effects to explain results, rather than as the primary phenomenon under investigation. Most publications were concerned with both positive and negative placebo effects, rather than just nocebo effects. Over half of the abstracts were in the field of neurology, psychiatry, psychology, or neuroscience (52.8%). The nocebo effect was most frequently investigated in the context of pain. Studies were almost exclusively in adults and more often in healthy participants than in patients. In conclusion, in the biomedical literature, there is an overabundance of nonsystematic reviews and expert opinions and a lack of primary research and high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically dealing with nocebo effects.