For this one:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13541

We selected 46 RCTs out of 1807 titles and abstracts screened…

There was no indication of subtstantial small study effects, but 36 RCTs had a high or uncertain risk of bias, particularly maintenance trials.

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?

All but four studies were funded, partly or wholly, 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…

We did not carry out a RoB analysis in maintenance RCTs because all carried a high risk of bias.

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

46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low;

Cool, 18% of the studied trials were low bias this time, roughly in line with the other meta study.

409 (78%) of 522 studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Awesome.