The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. Effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical, functional, and economic outcomes of initially prescribing fluoxetine with outcomes of initially selecting imipramine or desipramine. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics of a Seattle, Wash, area staff-model health maintenance organization from 1992 through 1994. PATIENTS: A total of 536 adults beginning antidepressant treatment for depression. INTERVENTION: Random assignment of initial antidepressant prescription (desipramine, fluoxetine, or imipramine). Subsequent antidepressant treatment (doses, medication changes or discontinuation, specialty referral) was managed by the primary care physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments after 1, 3, and 6 months examined clinical outcomes (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the depression subscale of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist) and quality-of-life outcomes (Medical Outcomes Study SF-36). Medication use and health care costs were assessed using the health maintenance organization's computerized data. RESULTS: Patients assigned to receive fluoxetine reported fewer adverse effects, were more likely to continue the original medication, and were more likely to reach adequate doses than patients beginning treatment with either tricyclic drug. The fluoxetine group reported marginally better clinical outcomes after 1 month, but these differences were not statistically significant and disappeared by the 3-month assessment. Quality-of-life outcomes in the 3 groups did not differ. Total health care costs over 6 months were approximately equal for the 3 groups, with higher antidepressant costs in the fluoxetine group balanced by lower outpatient visit and inpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes, quality-of-life outcomes, and overall treatment costs provide no clear guidance on initial selection of fluoxetine or tricyclic drugs. Thus, patients' and physicians' preferences are an appropriate basis for treatment selection.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Controversy in Counting and Attributing Events in Clinical Trials
Sackett, D. L., & Gent, M. (1979) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197912273012602 · Cited by 413
Cited by
External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Rothwell, P. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8 · Cited by 2,544
Tunis (2003) · doi:10.1001/jama.290.12.1624 · Cited by 1,724
Ford, I., & Norrie, J. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1510059 · Cited by 1,405
Monitoring Depression Treatment Outcomes With the Patient Health Questionnaire-9
L??we, B., Un??tzer, J., Callahan, C. M., Perkins, A. J., & Kroenke, K. (2004) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200412000-00006 · Cited by 1,354
Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments
Wiebe, S., Guyatt, G., Weaver, B., Matijevic, S., & Sidwell, C. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00537-1 · Cited by 573
Metadata
- Authors
- Simon, G. E.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1996-06-26
- Volume
- 275
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 1897
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2731812427
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.78
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. Effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.275.24.1897
- The paper
- Simon, G. E. (1996). Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. Effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.275.24.1897
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.