CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Treatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and tolerability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants in depression treated in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
MacGillivray, Steve, Arroll, Bruce, Hatcher, Simon, Ogston, Simon, Reid, Ian, Sullivan, Frank, Williams, Brian, Crombie, Iain·2003·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1014PMC PMC154760
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression in primary care. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: Register of the Cochrane Collaboration's depression, anxiety, and neurosis group. Reference lists of initial studies and other relevant review papers. Selected authors and experts. Selection of studies: Studies had to meet minimum requirements on: adequacy of sample size, adequate allocation concealment, clear description of treatment, representative source of subjects, use of diagnostic criteria or clear specification of inclusion criteria, details regarding number and reasons for withdrawal by group, and outcome measures described clearly or use of validated instruments. Main outcome measures: Standardised mean difference of final mean depression scores and relative risk of response when using the clinical global impression score. Relative risk of withdrawing from treatment at any time, and the number withdrawing due to side effects. Results: 11 studies (2951 participants) compared a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a tricyclic antidepressant. Efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics did not differ significantly (standardised weighted mean difference, fixed effects 0.07, 95% confidence interval −0.02 to 0.15; z=1.59, P<0.11). Significantly more patients receiving a tricyclic withdrew from treatment (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.90; z=3.37, P<0.0007) and withdrew specifically because of side effects (0.73, 0.60 to 0.88; z=3.24, P<0.001). Most studies included were small and supported by commercial funding. Many studies were of low methodological quality or did not present adequate data for analysis, or both, and were of short duration, typically six to eight weeks. Conclusion: The evidence on the relative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in primary care is sparse and of variable quality. The study setting is likely to be an important factor in assessing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with antidepressant drugs. What is already known on this topic: Previous meta-analyses have included comparatively large numbers of secondary care based studies that indicate no significant differences in efficacy between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics Previous meta-analyses are conflicting regarding the relative tolerability between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics, but do suggest a small but significant difference in favour of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors Such meta-analyses show notable heterogeneity What this study adds: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are better tolerated than tricyclics by primary care patients and may be better tolerated by primary care patients than secondary care patients Study setting seems to be important and should be considered before licences are given to specific antidepressants Although there are limited high quality data, available evidence shows that the most commonly prescribed classes of antidepressants in primary care (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics) are equally effective in the short term for primary care patients, but the literature has many gaps

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1014

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Show all 14 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
MacGillivray, S., Arroll, B., Hatcher, S., Ogston, S., Reid, I., Sullivan, F., Williams, B., & Crombie, I.
ORCID
Sullivan, Frank
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-05-10
Volume
326
Issue
7397
Pages
1014.1
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.326.7397.1014
PMC
PMC154760
OpenAlex
W2027923042
Cited by
265
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Output (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressant efficacy, antidepressant tolerability, treatment withdrawal, adverse effects, primary care, antidepressant comparison, treatment response, methodological quality of trials, low-quality evidence
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Patient Dropouts, Primary Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, 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