Summary of findings 3. Fluoxetine compared to agomelatine.
| Fluoxetine compared to agomelatine | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with depression Settings: in‐ and outpatients Intervention: fluoxetine Comparison: agomelatine | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Agomelatine | Fluoxetine | |||||
|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) |
282 per 1000 | 361 per 1000 (280 to 450) | OR 1.44 (0.99 to 2.09) | 515 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
|
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) |
The mean endpoint score in the intervention groups was 0.02 standard deviations higher (0.18 lower to 0.23 higher) | 1213 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This effect approaches zero | ||
| Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ | 135 per 1000 | 170 per 1000 (122 to 233) | OR 1.31 (0.89 to 1.94) | 785 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ | 55 per 1000 | 59 per 1000 (23 to 142) | OR 1.08 (0.41 to 2.88) | 785 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ | 34 per 1000 | 50 per 1000 (25 to 97) | OR 1.51 (0.74 to 3.07) | 785 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Limitations in studies designs: no details on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment. Blinding stated but not tested.
2 Only one study included in this analysis.