CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 161Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of depression with atypical features: A meta-analytic approach

Henkel, Verena, Mergl, Roland, Allgaier, Antje-Kathrin, Kohnen, Ralph, Möller, Hans-Jürgen, Hegerl, Ulrich·2006·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2005.07.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present meta-analysis addressed the empirical evidence regarding the treatment of major depression with atypical features. The superiority of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) compared with other antidepressants in the treatment of major depression with atypical features has been frequently reported. According to the CONSORT Statement, studies included in our meta-analysis had to meet several criteria, especially a double-blind, controlled condition and an operational diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III or DSM-IV criteria, respectively. Four databases for research-based evidence were used in a systematic review: Medline, Embase, Psyndex and PsycInfo. Only eight publications met inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in 11 comparisons. Our results contrast an effect size of 0.45 (95% confidence interval) for a comparison of MAOIs vs. placebo with an effect size of 0.02 (95% confidence interval: - 0.10-0.14) for a comparison of MAOIs vs. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The effect size for MAOIs vs. tricyclic antidepressants was 0.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.42). MAOIs may be more effective for atypical major depressive disorder than tricyclic antidepressants. Most clinical research has been conducted on irreversible MAOIs. Additional studies testing more recently developed antidepressants (including reversible MAOIs) with an improved safety profile would be warranted. The available data are insufficient for a direct comparison between MAOIs and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2005.07.012

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Cairoli, 1987, Considerations on the utility of an atypical bicyclic antidepressive (Viloxazine) administered intravenously in depressed patients: plasma levels, tolerance, and clinical response, Psichiatria e Psicoterapia Analitica, 6, 341
  2. Cironi, 1992, Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerance of fluoxetine in atypical depression, Rivista di Psichiatria, 27, 53
  3. De Leo, 1985, S-adenosyl-l-methionine (SAMe) in clinical practice: preliminary report on 75 minor depressives, Current Therapeutic Research, 37, 658
  4. Ginsberg, 2003, Chromium picolinate treatment of atypical depression, Primary Psychiatry, 10, 23
  5. Gomes de Matos, 2000, Venlafaxine in atypical depression, Jornal Brasileiro de Psiquiatria, 49, 185
  6. Hayano, 1994, Trazodone as an antidepressant (1)—the background factor of depressive patients, Journal of the Wakayama Medical Society, 45, 469
  7. Heinze, 1989, Antidepressive efficacy and tolerance of moclobemide: a monoaminooxidase reversible inhibitor, Salud Mental, 12, 17
  8. Salorio, 1997, Electroconvulsivant therapy in the treatment of atypical depression, Folia Neuropsiquiatrica, 32, 131
  9. Sovner, 1996, Ketoconazole therapy for atypical depression, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 57, 227
  10. Stratta, 1992, A double-blind study comparing fluoxetine with imipramine in the treatment of atypical depression, Rivista Sperimentale di Freniatria e Medicina Legale delle Alienazioni Mentali, 116, 148

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 161

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Henkel, V., Mergl, R., Allgaier, A.-K., Kohnen, R., Möller, H.-J., & Hegerl, U.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Mergl, Roland
ORCID
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-01
Volume
141
Issue
1
Pages
89-101
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2005.07.012
OpenAlex
W1986750404
Cited by
161
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Disorders
Keywords
atypical depression, major depressive disorder, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, antidepressant treatment, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, placebo comparison, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors, Phenelzine, Severity of Illness Index, Sertraline, Moclobemide

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