Bougerol 1997b.

Methods	Eight‐week, double‐blind, multicentre, parallel group study in general practice.
Participants	Outpatients (primary care) fulfilling DSM‐III‐R criteria for a major depressive disorder. The severity of depression should be 22 or more on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Age range: 18‐70 years. Exclusion criteria: pregnancy, lactation, failure to use a safetable contraceptive method, alcohol or drug abuse within the last year, patients with severe somatic, neurologic or psychiatric disease, treatment with MAOI within two weeks prior to entry the trial, hypersensitivity to study drugs, suicide risk.
Interventions	Fluoxetine: 184 participants. Citalopram: 173 participants. Fluoxetine dose: 20 mg. Citalopram dose: 20 mg/day. Concomitant psychotropic medication was prohibited, but use of benzodiazepines for insomnia.
Outcomes	Primary outcome: MADRS. Secondary outcomes: Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS‐17), Clinical Global Impression (CGI).
Notes	This study was funded Lundbeck (citalopram manufacturer).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "patients were randomized to double blind treatment". Probably done.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No data provided.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "due to the different appearance of the two drugs the "double‐dummy" principle was used to blind the study".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: " patients populations were defined as the Intention‐to‐treat (ITT) group and the Efficacy (EFF) group. The ITT population comprised all randomized patients. The EFF population consisted of all patients who fulfilled the entry criteria and had completed at least 14 days double‐blind treatment. All efficacy analyses were made on the basis of the EFF population".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Some endpoint scores and baseline scores are missing.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Sponsorship bias cannot be ruled out.