CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for depression

Open access
Cipriani, Andrea, Santilli, Claudio, Furukawa, Toshi A, Signoretti, Alessandra, Nakagawa, Atsuo, McGuire, Hugh, Churchill, Rachel, Barbui, Corrado·2009·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006532.pub2PMC PMC4164382
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment in primary and secondary care settings. During the last 20 years, antidepressant prescribing has risen dramatically in western countries, mainly because of the increasing consumption of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and newer antidepressants, which have progressively become the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. Escitalopram is the pure S-enantiomer of the racemic citalopram. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with tricyclics, other SSRIs, heterocyclics and newer agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2008. Trial databases of drug-approving agencies were hand-searched for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing escitalopram against any other antidepressant (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were entered by two review authors (double data entry). Responders and remitters to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (with 95% CI) using the random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials compared escitalopram with another SSRI and eight compared escitalopram with a newer antidepressive agent (venlafaxine, bupropion and duloxetine). Escitalopram was shown to be significantly more effective than citalopram in achieving acute response (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87). Escitalopram was also more effective than citalopram in terms of remission (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). Significantly fewer patients allocated to escitalopram withdrew from trials compared with patients allocated to duloxetine, for discontinuation due to any cause (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some statistically significant differences favouring escitalopram over other antidepressive agents for the acute phase treatment of major depression were found, in terms of efficacy (citalopram and fluoxetine) and acceptability (duloxetine). There is insufficient evidence to detect a difference between escitalopram and other antidepressants in early response to treatment (after two weeks of treatment). Cost-effectiveness information is also needed in the field of antidepressant trials. Furthermore, as with most standard systematic reviews, the findings rely on evidence from direct comparisons. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should also be borne in mind.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd006532.pub2

Cites

101 of 101 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

2 retracted

Show all 101 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. American Psychiatric Association, 1980, Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III)
  2. American Psychiatric Association, 1994, Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
  3. Guy, 1970, Manual for the ECDEU Assessment Battery 2
  4. Hansen, 2005, Efficacy and safety of second-generation of antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder, Annals of Internal Medicine, 143, 415, 10.7326/0003-4819-143-6-200509200-00006 · DOI
  5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007, Depression: management of depression in primary and secondary care (amended)
  6. Ware, 1993, SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpetation Guide
  7. World Health Organization, 1978, The Ninth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9)
  8. World Health Organization, 1992, The Tenth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cipriani, A., Santilli, C., Furukawa, T. A., Signoretti, A., Nakagawa, A., McGuire, H., Churchill, R., & Barbui, C.
Affiliations
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
  • University of Perugia (IT)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Keio University (JP)
  • National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health; 4th Floor, King's Court 2-16 Goodge Street London UK W1T 2QA
  • University of Bristol (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-15
Volume
2016
Issue
5
Pages
CD006532-CD006532
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd006532.pub2
PMC
PMC4164382
OpenAlex
W2169083980
Cited by
190
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
escitalopram, major depressive disorder, antidepressant efficacy, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, citalopram, venlafaxine, bupropion, duloxetine, tricyclic antidepressants, heterocyclic antidepressants, acute phase treatment, remission, treatment discontinuation, tolerability, antidepressant prescribing, Hypericum, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Humans, Citalopram, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

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