Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis
The Lancet, ISSN: 0140-6736, Vol: 373, Issue: 9665, Page: 746-758
2009
- 1,440Citations
- 1,459Captures
- 42Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1,440
- Citation Indexes1,377
- 1,377
- CrossRef1,064
- Policy Citations58
- Policy Citation58
- Clinical Citations5
- PubMed Guidelines5
- Captures1,459
- Readers1,459
- 1,453
- Mentions42
- References35
- Wikipedia35
- News Mentions4
- News4
- Blog Mentions3
- Blog3
Most Recent News
New study: It's not quackery—antidepressants work. Period.
Antidepressants actually do work for a majority of people who try them, a new study asserts. Read More
Article Description
Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of second-generation antidepressants. We therefore did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounts for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of 12 new-generation antidepressants on major depression. We systematically reviewed 117 randomised controlled trials (25 928 participants) from 1991 up to Nov 30, 2007, which compared any of the following antidepressants at therapeutic dose range for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression in adults: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who responded to or dropped out of the allocated treatment. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. Mirtazapine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, and sertraline were significantly more efficacious than duloxetine (odds ratios [OR] 1·39, 1·33, 1·30 and 1·27, respectively), fluoxetine (1·37, 1·32, 1·28, and 1·25, respectively), fluvoxamine (1·41, 1·35, 1·30, and 1·27, respectively), paroxetine (1·35, 1·30, 1·27, and 1·22, respectively), and reboxetine (2·03, 1·95, 1·89, and 1·85, respectively). Reboxetine was significantly less efficacious than all the other antidepressants tested. Escitalopram and sertraline showed the best profile of acceptability, leading to significantly fewer discontinuations than did duloxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, reboxetine, and venlafaxine. Clinically important differences exist between commonly prescribed antidepressants for both efficacy and acceptability in favour of escitalopram and sertraline. Sertraline might be the best choice when starting treatment for moderate to severe major depression in adults because it has the most favourable balance between benefits, acceptability, and acquisition cost. None.
Bibliographic Details
10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60046-5; 10.3410/f.1156898.617735; 10.3410/f.1156898.617530; 10.3410/f.1156898.616954; 10.3410/f.1156898.793492536
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609600465; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60046-5; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=60849086169&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19185342; https://facultyopinions.com/prime/1156898#eval617735; http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/f.1156898.617735; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673609600465; https://facultyopinions.com/prime/1156898#eval617530; http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/f.1156898.617530; https://facultyopinions.com/prime/1156898#eval616954; http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/f.1156898.616954; http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673609600465; http://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0140673609600465?httpAccept=text/xml; http://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0140673609600465?httpAccept=text/plain; https://facultyopinions.com/prime/1156898#eval793492536; http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/f.1156898.793492536; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736%2809%2960046-5; http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60046-5/abstract; https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/getSharedSiteSession?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelancet.com%2Fjournals%2Flancet%2Farticle%2FPIIS0140-6736%2809%2960046-5%2Fabstract&rc=0&code=lancet-site; http://acw.elsevier.com/SSOCore?return=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSsoCookie%3FredirectUri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thelancet.com%252Faction%252FconsumeSharedSessionAction%253FJSESSIONID%253Daaa7TxLouCm4g-X_kmKxv%2526MAID%253Dndcm7yCQfdCuoIcAtieLwQ%25253D%25253D%2526SERVER%253DWZ6myaEXBLGvmNGtLlDx7g%25253D%25253D%2526ORIGIN%253D154441552%2526RD%253DRD; http://acw.elsevier.com/SSOCore/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSsoCookie%3FredirectUri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thelancet.com%252Faction%252FconsumeSharedSessionAction%253FJSESSIONID%253Daaa7TxLouCm4g-X_kmKxv%2526MAID%253Dndcm7yCQfdCuoIcAtieLwQ%25253D%25253D%2526SERVER%253DWZ6myaEXBLGvmNGtLlDx7g%25253D%25253D%2526ORIGIN%253D154441552%2526RD%253DRD; https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/consumeSsoCookie?redirectUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelancet.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSharedSessionAction%3FJSESSIONID%3Daaa7TxLouCm4g-X_kmKxv%26MAID%3Dndcm7yCQfdCuoIcAtieLwQ%253D%253D%26SERVER%3DWZ6myaEXBLGvmNGtLlDx7g%253D%253D%26ORIGIN%3D154441552%26RD%3DRD&acw=&utt=; http://f1000.com/1156898#eval617530; http://f1000.com/1156898#eval617735; http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/19185342; https://f1000.com/prime/1156898; http://f1000.com/1156898#eval616954
Faculty Opinions Ltd
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know