Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and Safety of Second-Generation Antidepressants in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder

Hansen, Richard A., Gartlehner, Gerald, Lohr, Kathleen N., Gaynes, Bradley N., Carey, Timothy S.·2005·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-143-6-200509200-00006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reviews have compared the efficacy and tolerability of newer second-generation antidepressants with those of placebo or older treatments, but comparative evidence for use of second-generation antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder has not been evaluated. PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate comparative data on the efficacy, effectiveness, and tolerability of commonly prescribed second-generation antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, bupropion, duloxetine, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine) in the treatment of major depressive disorder. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychLit; the Cochrane Library; and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched from January 1980 through February 2005 for reviews; randomized, controlled trials; meta-analyses; and observational studies. STUDY SELECTION: The authors reviewed 46 head-to-head randomized, controlled trials comparing one second-generation antidepressant with another. Twenty-four observational studies and placebo-controlled trials were also included for assessment of safety and tolerability. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. Trained reviewers abstracted data from each study and assigned an initial quality rating. A second reviewer verified the data extraction and quality rating. DATA SYNTHESIS: According to fair to good evidence, the second-generation antidepressants that were compared had only minimal differences in efficacy, and 88% of comparative efficacy studies reported no statistically significant difference in any outcome measure at the end of the study. One effectiveness trial rated good and 2 effectiveness trials rated fair reported no statistically significant differences in primary outcome measures for compared drugs. Meta-analyses showed a modest but statistically significant additional treatment effect for sertraline and venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine. About 96% of comparative trials were sponsored by or had at least 1 author affiliated with a pharmaceutical company; the remaining trials did not report funding sources. Adverse event profiles differed among drugs; however, the degree and quality of adverse event assessment varied and only 13% of trials used a standardized scale to assess adverse events. LIMITATIONS: Quantitative analyses could not be done for many drug comparisons because the quantity and quality of the evidence were inadequate. Most published evidence was from trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, and publication bias may have occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, second-generation antidepressants probably do not differ substantially for treatment of major depressive disorder. Choosing the agent that is most appropriate for a given patient is difficult.

Overview

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-143-6-200509200-00006

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, R. A., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K. N., Gaynes, B. N., & Carey, T. S.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2005-09-20
Volume
143
Issue
6
Pages
415-426
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-143-6-200509200-00006
OpenAlex
W2132577167
Cited by
255
References
19
FWCI
14.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.