Alik S Widge1, M Taha Bilge1, Rebecca Montana1, Weilynn Chang1, Carolyn I Rodriguez1, Thilo Deckersbach1, Linda L Carpenter1, Ned H Kalin1, Charles B Nemeroff1. 1. From the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; the Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston; the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.; the Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif.; Butler Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison; the Department of Psychiatry, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reducing unsuccessful treatment trials could improve depression treatment. Quantitative EEG (QEEG) may predict treatment response and is being commercially marketed for this purpose. The authors sought to quantify the reliability of QEEG for response prediction in depressive illness and to identify methodological limitations of the available evidence. METHOD: The authors conducted a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for QEEG in depressive illness, based on articles published between January 2000 and November 2017. The review included all articles that used QEEG to predict response during a major depressive episode, regardless of patient population, treatment, or QEEG marker. The primary meta-analytic outcome was the accuracy for predicting response to depression treatment, expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and the logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio. Raters also judged each article on indicators of good research practice. RESULTS: In 76 articles reporting 81 biomarkers, the meta-analytic estimates showed a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI=0.67-0.76) and a specificity of 0.68 (95% CI=0.63-0.73). The logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio was 1.89 (95% CI=1.56-2.21), and the area under the receiver operator curve was 0.76 (95% CI=0.71-0.80). No specific QEEG biomarker or specific treatment showed greater predictive power than the all-studies estimate in a meta-regression. Funnel plot analysis suggested substantial publication bias. Most studies did not use ideal practices. CONCLUSIONS: QEEG does not appear to be clinically reliable for predicting depression treatment response, as the literature is limited by underreporting of negative results, a lack of out-of-sample validation, and insufficient direct replication of previous findings. Until these limitations are remedied, QEEG is not recommended for guiding selection of psychiatric treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Reducing unsuccessful treatment trials could improve depression treatment. Quantitative EEG (QEEG) may predict treatment response and is being commercially marketed for this purpose. The authors sought to quantify the reliability of QEEG for response prediction in depressive illness and to identify methodological limitations of the available evidence. METHOD: The authors conducted a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for QEEG in depressive illness, based on articles published between January 2000 and November 2017. The review included all articles that used QEEG to predict response during a major depressive episode, regardless of patient population, treatment, or QEEG marker. The primary meta-analytic outcome was the accuracy for predicting response to depression treatment, expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and the logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio. Raters also judged each article on indicators of good research practice. RESULTS: In 76 articles reporting 81 biomarkers, the meta-analytic estimates showed a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI=0.67-0.76) and a specificity of 0.68 (95% CI=0.63-0.73). The logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio was 1.89 (95% CI=1.56-2.21), and the area under the receiver operator curve was 0.76 (95% CI=0.71-0.80). No specific QEEG biomarker or specific treatment showed greater predictive power than the all-studies estimate in a meta-regression. Funnel plot analysis suggested substantial publication bias. Most studies did not use ideal practices. CONCLUSIONS: QEEG does not appear to be clinically reliable for predicting depression treatment response, as the literature is limited by underreporting of negative results, a lack of out-of-sample validation, and insufficient direct replication of previous findings. Until these limitations are remedied, QEEG is not recommended for guiding selection of psychiatric treatment.
Authors: Kerry L Coburn; Edward C Lauterbach; Nash N Boutros; Kevin J Black; David B Arciniegas; C Edward Coffey Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.198
Authors: Giacomo Salvadore; Brian R Cornwell; Fabio Sambataro; David Latov; Veronica Colon-Rosario; Frederick Carver; Tom Holroyd; Nancy DiazGranados; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira; Christian Grillon; Wayne C Drevets; Carlos A Zarate Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Ian A Cook; Aimee M Hunter; Marissa M Caudill; Michelle J Abrams; Andrew F Leuchter Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Amin Zandvakili; Noah S Philip; Stephanie R Jones; Audrey R Tyrka; Benjamin D Greenberg; Linda L Carpenter Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Ezra E Smith; Craig E Tenke; Patricia J Deldin; Madhukar H Trivedi; Myrna M Weissman; Randy P Auerbach; Gerard E Bruder; Diego A Pizzagalli; Jürgen Kayser Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Zhi-De Deng; Bruce Luber; Nicholas L Balderston; Melbaliz Velez Afanador; Michelle M Noh; Jeena Thomas; William C Altekruse; Shannon L Exley; Shriya Awasthi; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 13.820
Authors: Ronald J Swatzyna; Martijn Arns; Jay D Tarnow; Robert P Turner; Emma Barr; Erin K MacInerney; Anne M Hoffman; Nash N Boutros Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Salvatore Campanella; Kemal Arikan; Claudio Babiloni; Michela Balconi; Maurizio Bertollo; Viviana Betti; Luigi Bianchi; Martin Brunovsky; Carla Buttinelli; Silvia Comani; Giorgio Di Lorenzo; Daniel Dumalin; Carles Escera; Andreas Fallgatter; Derek Fisher; Giulia Maria Giordano; Bahar Guntekin; Claudio Imperatori; Ryouhei Ishii; Hendrik Kajosch; Michael Kiang; Eduardo López-Caneda; Pascal Missonnier; Armida Mucci; Sebastian Olbrich; Georges Otte; Andrea Perrottelli; Alessandra Pizzuti; Diego Pinal; Dean Salisbury; Yingying Tang; Paolo Tisei; Jijun Wang; Istvan Winkler; Jiajin Yuan; Oliver Pogarell Journal: Clin EEG Neurosci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 1.843