Summary of findings 7. Fluoxetine compared to citalopram.
| Fluoxetine compared to citalopram | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with depression Settings: in‐ and outpatients Intervention: fluoxetine Comparison: citalopram | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Citalopram | Fluoxetine | |||||
|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) |
379 per 1000 | 268 per 1000 (109 to 522) | OR 0.60 (0.20 to 1.79) | 59 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
|
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) |
The mean endpoint score in the intervention groups was 0.06 standard deviations higher (0.10 lower to 0.21 higher) | 661 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This effect approaches zero | ||
| Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ | 211 per 1000 | 189 per 1000 (138 to 254) | OR 0.87 (0.60 to 1.27) | 732 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ | 75 per 1000 | 66 per 1000 (37 to 112) | OR 0.87 (0.48 to 1.56) | 732 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ | 75 per 1000 | 49 per 1000 (27 to 89) | OR 0.64 (0.34 to 1.20) | 732 (3 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 the analysis and less than 100 patients.