Summary of findings 26. Fluoxetine compared to venlafaxine.
| Fluoxetine compared to venlafaxine | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with depression Settings: in‐ and outpatients Intervention: fluoxetine Comparison: venlafaxine | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Venlafaxine | Fluoxetine | |||||
|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) |
341 per 1000 | 400 per 1000 (363 to 439) | OR 1.29 (1.10 to 1.51) | 3387 (12 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
|
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) |
The mean endpoint score in the intervention groups was 0.10 standard deviations higher (0.0 to 0.19 higher) | 3097 (13 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This corresponds to a very small effect according to conventions proposed by Cohen 1992 | ||
| Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ | 256 per 1000 | 234 per 1000 (203 to 267) | OR 0.89 (0.74 to 1.06) | 2683 (14 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ | 43 per 1000 | 56 per 1000 (40 to 79) | OR 1.31 (0.91 to 1.89) | 2640 (13 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ | 116 per 1000 | 87 per 1000 (69 to 110) | OR 0.72 (0.56 to 0.94) | 2640 (13 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.