Cited by 239Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Safety and tolerability considerations: tricyclic antidepressants vs. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

Peretti, S., Judge, R., Hindmarch, I.·2000·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

Peretti S, Judge R, Hindmarch I. Safety and tolerability considerations: tricyclic antidepressants vs. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2000: 101: 17–25. © Munksgaard 2000. Objective: An important consideration in the choice of an antidepressant is its safety and tolerability. Method: We present a review of literature, clinical trials and meta‐analyses regarding the safety and tolerability of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in depressed patients. Results: The SSRIs have a very favourable side‐effect profile compared to the TCAs and are associated with fewer treatment discontinuations. Unlike the TCAs, they do not cause anticholinergic, hypotensive or sedating reactions, and are not associated with impaired cognitive function. Their most common side‐effects (nausea, vomiting, nervousness, insomnia, headache and sexual dysfunction) are usually mild and typically disappear as treatment continues. The SSRTs also exhibit lower toxicity and lower lethality when taken in an overdose situation. Although the safety profiles of the principal SSRTs appear to be comparable, there is some data showing important differences in the severity and frequency of specific adverse events. Conclusion: The SSRTs have a more favourable safety profile than the TCAs in both acute and long‐term treatment of major depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2000.tb10944.x

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The deleterious effect on executive function might be explained at least in part by the anticholinergic effects of some tricyclic antidepressants.

    “This deleterious effect might be explained at least in part by the anticholinergic effects of some TCAs [82].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peretti, S., Judge, R., & Hindmarch, I.
Affiliations
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Judge, R.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-09
Volume
101
Issue
S403
Pages
17-25
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
OpenAlex
W2082298277
Cited by
236
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antidepressant safety, drug tolerability, adverse drug reactions, major depressive disorder, anticholinergic effects, overdose toxicity, sexual dysfunction, treatment discontinuation, cognitive function
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition Disorders, Drug Tolerance, Humans, Meta-Analysis 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