Cited by 115Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of sertraline versus fluoxetine in major depression

Abstract

An eight-week double-blind, multicentre study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sertraline vs. fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression (DSM-III-R). There were 108 out-patients, from nine Italian centres, entered into the study, of whom 88 were evaluable (48 sertraline, 40 fluoxetine). The final mean daily dose of sertraline was 72 mg and for fluoxetine it was 28 mg. Both treatment groups showed a statistically significant improvement from baseline at one week, and this was maintained until the end of treatment for all of the following measures: Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety, the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Scale, Zung Self-Rating Scale for Anxiety and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. Although there was a numerical advantage for sertraline on several efficacy measures, there was no statistically significant difference found between the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both treatments; 40.4% for sertraline and 39.3% for fluoxetine. However, adverse events were generally rated by patients as of lower severity in the sertraline group. In addition, for the fluoxetine group, there was a higher incidence of agitation, anxiety and insomnia than for sertraline. Sertraline was considered to be better tolerated than fluoxetine overall, since only 9.6% of sertraline-treated patients discontinued treatment due to therapy failure whereas in the fluoxetine-trea…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004850-199300830-00010

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?

  • Patient-rated LSEQ scores have been shown to improve with citalopram, sertraline and fluoxetine, comparing well with TCAs in this respect, although not so well as some newer antidepressants.

    “However, patient-rated LSEQ scores have been shown to improve with citalopram (Leinonen et al., 1999), sertraline and fluoxetine (Aguglia et al., 1993), comparing well with TCAs in this respect, although not so well as some of the newer antidepressants.”

    From Antidepressants and their effect on sleep (2005) · cites this paper as Aguglia et al., 1993

  • Some studies suggest that sertraline and fluoxetine present similar improvements in LSEQ scores.

    “Some studies suggest that sertraline and fluoxetine present similar improvements in LSEQ scores (Aguglia et al., 1993), while others show better improvement with sertraline (Bennie et al., 1995); sertraline was also shown to produce fewer reports of insomnia than fluoxetine.”

    From Antidepressants and their effect on sleep (2005) · cites this paper as Aguglia et al., 1993

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Aguglia, E., Casacchia, M., Cassano, G. B., Faravelli, C., Ferrari, G., Giordano, P., Pancheri, P., Ravizza, L., Trabucchi, M., Bolino, F., Scarpato, A., Berardi, D., Provenzano, G., Brugnoli, R., & Rozzini, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Trieste (IT)
  • University of L'Aquila (IT)
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi (IT)
  • University of Palermo (IT)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
1993
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
197-202
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010759906
Cited by
115
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.95
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
sertraline, fluoxetine, major depressive disorder, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antidepressant efficacy, drug safety, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, agitation, insomnia, anxiety, sleep, tolerability
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fluoxetine, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, 1-Naphthylamine, Treatment Outcome, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Sertraline

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