Summary of findings 23. Fluoxetine compared to sertraline.
| Fluoxetine compared to sertraline | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with depression Settings: in‐ and outpatients Intervention: fluoxetine Comparison: sertraline | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Sertraline | Fluoxetine | |||||
|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) |
416 per 1000 | 494 per 1000 (435 to 554) | OR 1.37 (1.08 to 1.74) | 1188 (6 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
|
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) |
The mean endpoint score in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations higher (0.03 lower to 0.20 higher) | 1160 (7 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This corresponds to a very small effect according to conventions proposed by Cohen 1992 | ||
| Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ | 229 per 1000 | 258 per 1000 (217 to 307) | OR 1.17 (0.93 to 1.49) | 1591 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ | 70 per 1000 | 76 per 1000 (49 to 118) | OR 1.09 (0.68 to 1.77) | 1056 (5 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ | 110 per 1000 | 134 per 1000 (102 to 174) | OR 1.25 (0.92 to 1.70) | 1591 (9 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.