Cited by 8Treatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

A systematic review of Chinese randomized clinical trials of SSRI treatment of depression

Open access
Zhang, Ying, Becker, Thomas, Ma, Yongchun, Koesters, Markus·2014·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have become the most frequently used antidepressants in China in recent decades. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs in Chinese studies and the quality of Chinese randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Major Western and Chinese electronic databases were searched for double-blind, parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSRIs (fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline) with other antidepressants such as SSRI, Selective Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitor (SNRI), tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and/or placebo. Response, remission, and dropout rates due to side effects were defined as primary outcomes. Mean total Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression (HAMD) scores at endpoint, overall dropout rates and total Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS) scores were defined as secondary outcomes. Data were combined with random effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane evaluation tool. Quality of reports was assessed by the fulfilment of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) items. RESULTS: A total of 71 studies were included. Only one study was listed in both Chinese and Western databases. SSRIs were found to be more effective than TCAs. No significant differences were observed regarding dropout rates due to side effects. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, adequate methods of sequence generation were described in 16 (23%) studies. All authors failed to report trial registration. Informed consent, sources of funding, email address, protocol, and limitations were also not mentioned in most studies. However, reporting quality improved steadily between 1996 and 2013. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the low trial quality, the findings of a significant advantage of SSRI over TCA in terms of response rate and remission rate should be replicated by large high-quality Chinese studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12888-014-0245-4

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [18]Du YM Wu RQ Wang JX A comparative study of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of depressive disorder [Chinese] Hebei Medical Journal 2006 28 507
  2. [19]Li B Wang ZX Yao FC Huang MS Ma C Sun XL A double blind controlled trial comparing sertraline and amitriptyline in major depression Journal of Clinical Psychological Medicine 1996 6 329 331
  3. [20]Fang LQ Yang ZC A comparative study of citalopram and fluoxetine in the treatment of post-stroke depression [Chinese] Journal of harbin medical university 2007 41 73 74
  4. [25]Zhang ZQ Yang XR Wang XD A clinical control study of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in the treatment of depression patients Chinese Journal of Current Clinical Medicine 2004 2 695 696

Authors
Zhang, Y., Becker, T., Ma, Y., & Koesters, M.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Ying
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
245-245
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154005563
Cited by
8
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, depression, antidepressant efficacy, antidepressant tolerability, trial quality, reporting quality, tricyclic antidepressants, fluoxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, treatment discontinuation, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic, China, Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Fluoxetine, Humans, Citalopram, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Paroxetine, 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