Cited by 114Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major DepressionMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Escitalopram and paroxetine in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder: Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

Open access
Baldwin, David S., Huusom, Anna Karina Trap, Mæhlum, Eli·2006·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: It is uncertain whether higher doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have greater efficacy in generalised anxiety disorder. Aims: To assess the efficacy of different doses of escitalopram in generalised anxiety disorder. Method: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose, parallel-group, 12-week study, with 681 patients: placebo (n=139); escitalopram, 5 mg/day, (n=134); 10 mg/day (n=136); 20 mg/day (n=133); paroxetine, 20 mg/day (n=139). Results: Mean change in the primary efficacy measure was greater with escitalopram 10 and 20 mg than with placebo; 10 mg was more efficacious than paroxetine. Paroxetine was superior to placebo on some secondary measures, at sometime points. Compared with placebo, more patients withdrew because of adverse events with escitalopram 20 mg and paroxetine. Conclusions: Escitalopram was efficacious in generalised anxiety disorder, 20 was not significantly superior to 10 mg/day Escitalopram 10 mg was more efficacious than paroxetine.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.012799

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Randomised studies with tapering periods up to 14 days showed no or minimal reduction in withdrawal symptom severity compared with abrupt discontinuation.

    “randomised studies with a tapering period up to 14 days showed either no or minimal reduction in withdrawal symptom severity compared with abrupt discontinuation (Baldwin 2006;Bogetto 2002;Montgomery 2004a).”

    From Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults (2021) · cites this paper as Baldwin 2006

    The Tolerability assessments section describes a randomized comparison of stopping treatment immediately versus continuing the same dose for one more week before stopping—not tapering versus abrupt discontinuation. The DESS results section says the dose-reduction group had no randomized withdrawal comparison and omits its results from the figure. This paper therefore does not show that tapering reduced withdrawal symptoms minimally or not at all compared with abrupt discontinuation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Animal studies concerned with the long-term use of antidepressants have limited implications for understanding SSRI discontinuation because clear discontinuation-like behaviors in animal models are not available.

    “Animal studies concerned with the longterm use of AD have limited implications, since clear discontinuation-like behaviors in animal models are not available [28] .”

    From Withdrawal Symptoms after Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Discontinuation: A Systematic Review (2015) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Tolerability assessments and Discussion passages describe discontinuation symptoms in human patients after stopping SSRIs. Searches for animal studies and discontinuation-like behaviors in animal models found no passage addressing whether such behaviors are available or what that means for interpreting long-term antidepressant studies. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [3]3. Allgulander, C., Florea, I. & Huusom, A. K. T. (2005) Prevention of relapse in generalised anxiety disorder by Prevention of relapse in generalised anxiety disorder by escitalopram treatment. escitalopram treatment. International Journal of International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology Neuropsychopharmacology, 2005. doi: 10.1017/ , 2005. doi: 10.1017/ S1461145705005973 S1461145705005973 American Psychiatric Association (2000) American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn, text (4th edn, text revision) (DSM ^IV^TR).Washigton, DC: APA. revision) (DSM ^IV^TR).Washigton, DC: APA.
  2. [5]5. Baldwin, D. S. & Polkinghorn, C. (2005) Evidence- Evidence- based pharmacological treatment of generalised anxiety based pharmacological treatment of generalised anxiety disorder. disorder. International Journal of International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology Neuropsychopharmacology, , 8 8, 293^302. , 293^302.
  3. [23]23. ANNA KARINA TRAP HUUSOM, MSc, H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark; ELI MÓHLUM, MSc, ANNA KARINATRAP HUUSOM, MSc, H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark; ELI MÓHLUM, MSc, H. Lundbeck A/S, Lysaker, Norway H. Lundbeck A/S, Lysaker, Norway Correspondence: David S.Baldwin,University Department of Mental Health, Royal South Hants Correspondence: David S.Baldwin,University Department of Mental Health, Royal South Hants Hospital,Graham Road, Southampton SO14 0YG,UK.Tel.: +4 4 (0) 2380 825 533, Hospital,Graham Road, Southampton SO14 0YG,UK.Tel.: +44 (0) 238 0 825 533, fax: +44 (0) 238 0 234 243, email: dsb1 fax: +4 4 (0) 2380 234 243, email: dsb1@ @soton.ac.uk soton.ac.uk (First received 29 April 2005, final revision 23 February 2006, accepted 2 March 2006) (First received 29 April 2005, final revision 23 February 2006, accepted 2 March 2006) https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.105.012799 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baldwin, D. S., Huusom, A. K. T., & Mæhlum, E.
Affiliations
  • Royal South Hants Hospital (GB)
  • Lundbeck (Denmark) (DK)
Corresponding author
Baldwin, David S.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2006-09
Volume
189
Issue
3
Pages
264-272
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2018098567
Cited by
114
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
14.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, escitalopram, paroxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, dose comparison, antidepressant efficacy, adverse events, treatment withdrawal
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Citalopram, Treatment Outcome, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Paroxetine

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