Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 488

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Triiodothyronine Augmentation in the Treatment of Refractory Depression: A Meta-analysis

Aronson, Ronnie·1996·Archives of General Psychiatry
DOI 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830090090013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several trials have addressed the efficacy of liothyronine sodium therapy in euthyroid, nonpsychotic depressed patients refractory to tricyclic antidepressant therapy. We undertook a meta-analysis of these trials. METHODS: The MEDLINE database (1966 to May 1995) and published reference lists were examined for controlled clinical trials of triiodothyronine augmentation in euthyroid patients with refractory depression. Quality assessment and data abstraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were aggregated three ways: the relative response rate compared with controls, accepting each trial's definition of clinical response; absolute improvement in response rates; and improvements in depression scores, analyzed as continuous variables without a prespecified threshold for clinical response. RESULTS: Aggregating eight studies with a total of 292 patients, patients treated with triiodothyronine augmentation were twice as likely to respond as controls (relative response, 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 to 3.32; P = .002). This corresponded to a 23.2% absolute improvement in response rates (95% CI, 4.5% to 41.9%; P = .02). Improvements in depression scores were moderately large (standardized effect size, 0.62; P < .001). However, study quality was uneven, and results were statistically heterogeneous. Among the four randomized double-blind studies, pooled effects were not significant (relative response, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.70 to 3.35; P = .29), but one study with negative results accounted for most of the intertrial heterogeneity in results. CONCLUSIONS: Triiodothyronine augmentation may be an effective empirical method of increasing response rates and decreasing depression severity scores in a subgroup of patients with depression refractory to tricyclic antidepressant therapy, but the total number of patients randomized was small, and additional placebo-controlled data are required for a definitive verdict. Since therapeutic trends now favor other drugs, future trials might usefully examine triiodothyronine augmentation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or compare potentiation strategies, eg, lithium vs triiodothyronine, for managing refractory depression. Such trials would benefit from much larger sample sizes than those reviewed here.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830090090013

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Aronson, R.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1996-09-01
Volume
53
Issue
9
Pages
842
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830090090013
OpenAlex
W2035353883
Cited by
488
References
3
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.