Summary of findings 22. Fluoxetine compared to reboxetine.
| Fluoxetine compared to reboxetine | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with depression Settings: in‐ and outpatients Intervention: fluoxetine Comparison: reboxetine | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Reboxetine | Fluoxetine | |||||
|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) |
566 per 1000 | 501 per 1000 (418 to 589) | OR 0.77 (0.55 to 1.10) | 721 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
|
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) |
The mean endpoint score in the intervention groups was 0.04 standard deviations higher (0.31 lower to 0.40 higher) | 205 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This effect approaches zero | ||
| Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ | 361 per 1000 | 253 per 1000 (199 to 316) | OR 0.60 (0.44 to 0.82) | 764 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ | 88 per 1000 | 82 per 1000 (43 to 146) | OR 0.92 (0.47 to 1.77) | 464 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ | 129 per 1000 | 57 per 1000 (22 to 139) | OR 0.41 (0.15 to 1.09) | 211 (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.