Supplemental Material-Differences in therapeutic efficacy of depression treatment strategies-a comprehensive evaluation based on network meta-analysis

Research Hypothesis:
This dataset supports a meta-analysis assessing whether combination therapies (e.g., pharmacological + psychological/physical interventions) demonstrate superior efficacy in treatment response and remission rates compared to monotherapies (e.g., drug, psychological, or physical interventions alone) for a clinical condition (implied by the main manuscript).
Data Overview:
Two tables are included:
1. Table S1: Summarizes 70 studies, detailing authors, interventions (e.g., combination vs. monotherapy), outcomes (response/remission), and sample sizes.
2. Table S2: Quality assessment of studies using standardized tools (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias).
Key Findings:
• Efficacy: Combination therapies often showed higher responder counts (e.g., Akhouri et al., 2023: 74 responders in combination vs. 60 in drug-only) and improved remission rates (e.g., Amminger et al., 2024: 36/102 vs. 33/100 in psychological therapy).
• Heterogeneity: Variability in outcomes across interventions and study designs (e.g., small sample sizes, diverse comparators).
• Quality: Most studies demonstrated moderate-to-high methodological rigor, supporting robust conclusions.
Interpretation & Utility:
• Interpretation: Multimodal interventions may enhance outcomes, but variability necessitates caution. Quality assessments (Table S2) contextualize reliability.
• Usage: Enables replication of meta-analytic results, subgroup analyses (e.g., by intervention type), and identification of research gaps (e.g., understudied comparators).
Methodology:
• Studies identified via systematic searches (PRISMA guidelines), focusing on RCTs comparing combination and monotherapies.
• Data extracted independently by two reviewers; quality assessed with validated tools.
Ethics & Accessibility:
• Anonymized, publicly sourced data. Tables provided in editable format for reuse.
This concise dataset underpins evidence-based insights into therapeutic efficacy, aligning with the main manuscript’s goals.