Cited by 39Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Double-blind Comparative Study of Fluoxetine and Dothiepin in the Treatment of Depression in General Practice

CORNE, S. J., HALL, J. R.·1989·International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Fluoxetine, a selective inhibitor of 5-HT uptake, was compared to dothiepin in a double-blind study of 6 weeks duration in 100 depressed patients (male and female) drawn from 8 general practices. Only those who scored at least 17 on the first 17 questions of the Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) were selected. Both groups improved throughout the trial, though the dothiepin treated patients tended to improve quicker. However, by the end of the trial there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Subset analyses of HAM-D scores associated with anxiety and sleep revealed no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatments though improvement in anxiety scores was marginally greater for those receiving fluoxetine by the end of the trial. Other global assessments by patients and doctors confirmed the changes in HAM-D scores. Statistically significant weight changes occurred between visits 1 and 5. Whereas fluoxetine-treated patients lost weight (p less than 0.05), dothiepin-treated patients gained weight (p = 0.05) over this period. Adverse effects were reported in 27 patients given fluoxetine and 20 dothiepin. Of these, 14 fluoxetine and 7 dothiepin-treated patients withdrew before the end of the trial. The most common adverse effects were nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea in the fluoxetine group and tiredness, drowsiness and diarrhoea in the dothiepin group. There were no haematological or clinical chemistry changes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004850-198907000-00007

Cites

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?

  • In depressed patients in primary care, there were no between-group differences on HAMDS between dothiepin and fluoxetine, but tiredness/drowsiness side effects were reported more often in the dothiepin group and response was quicker for dothiepin.

    “No between-group differences on HAMDS, but tiredness/drowsiness side effects reported more often in DOT group and response quicker for DOT”

    From Antidepressants and their effect on sleep (2005) · cites this paper as Corne, 1989

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
CORNE, S. J., & HALL, J. R.
Affiliations
Eli Lilly (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
1989-07
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
245-254
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055974308
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Clinical Psychopharmacology (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
fluoxetine, dothiepin, depression, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, general practice, antidepressant efficacy, weight change, adverse drug reactions, anxiety, sleep, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Body Weight, Clinical Trials as Topic, Depression, Dibenzothiepins, Dothiepin, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fluoxetine, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Random Allocation

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