Summary of findings 5. TCA compared to MAOI for adults with panic disorder.
| TCA compared to MAOI for adults with panic disorder | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults with panic disorder Settings: outpatient Intervention: TCA Comparison: MAOI | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| MAOI | TCA | |||||
| failure to respond Follow‐up: 8 weeks | 224 per 1000 | 132 per 1000 (63 to 282) | RR 0.59 (0.28 to 1.26) | 135 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| total number of dropouts | 386 per 1000 | 324 per 1000 (235 to 452) | RR 0.84 (0.61 to 1.17) | 228 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | |
| failure to remit | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | No studies provided data for this outcome |
| panic symptoms Follow‐up: 8 weeks | The mean panic symptoms in the intervention groups was 0.20 lower (0.75 lower to 0.35 higher) | 135 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3 | |||
| number of dropouts due to adverse events Follow‐up: 8 weeks | 104 per 1000 | 133 per 1000 (52 to 335) | RR 1.27 (0.5 to 3.21) | 135 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low4 | |
| *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; RR: Risk 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 Downgraded two points due to imprecision: number of individuals included in the study is low (= 135) and 95% CI ranges from appreciable benefit with TCAs to no difference; only one study provides data 2 Downgraded one point due high dropout rates 3 Downgraded two points due to imprecision: number of individuals included in the study is low (= 135) and 95% CI ranges from appreciable benefit with TCAs to no difference; only one study provides data. 4 Downgrded two points due to imprecision: number of individuals included in the study is low (= 135) and 95% CI ranges from appreciable benefit with TCAs to appreciable benefit with MAOIs; only one study provides data.