Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12917952›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression.

T Furukawa, H McGuire, C Barbui

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Amitriptyline versus placebo for major depressive disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pitfalls of using the risk ratio in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

T FurukawaDept of Psychiatry, Nagoya City University Medical School, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
H McGuire
C Barbui
Nagoya City University · JPUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTricyclic antidepressants are still extensively prescribed worldwide. Evidence for the recommended dosage of tricyclics, however, is poor.

objectivesTo compare the effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants with placebo and with standard dosage tricyclics in acute phase treatment of depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic search of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), incorporating results of group searches of MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1982-), PsycLIT (1974-), PSYNDEX (1977-) and LILACS (1982-1999) and hand searches of major psychiatric and medical journals. Reference search and SciSearch of the identified studies. Personal contact with authors of significant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials 1) comparing low dosage TCA (=< 100 mg/d on average at the end of trial) with placebo or 2) comparing low and standard dosages of the same TCA, in acute phase treatment of depressive disorder DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers examined eligibility of the identified studies, and extracted data for outcomes at 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6-8 weeks and later. Main outcome measures were relative risk of response in depression (random effects model), according to the original authors' definition but usually defined as 50% or greater reduction in severity of depression according to the last-observation-carried-forward intention-to-treat method, and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects. Other outcome measures included worst-case-scenario intention-to-treat analysis of response as defined above (in which dropouts were considered non-responders in the active treatment group and as responders in the comparison group), and standardised weighted mean scores of continuous depression severity scales (usually calculated by last-observation-carried-forward method). MAIN

results35 studies (2013 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with placebo, and six studies (551 participants) compared low dosage tricyclics with standard dosage tricyclics. Low dosage tricyclics, mostly between 75 and 100 mg/day, were 1.65 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.0) and 1.47 (1.12 to 1.94) times more likely than placebo to bring about response at 4 weeks and 6-8 weeks, respectively. Standard dosage tricyclics failed, however, to bring about more response but produced more dropouts due to side effects than low dosage tricyclics. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsTreatment of depression in adults with low dose tricyclics is justified. However, more rigorous studies are needed to definitively establish the relative benefits and harms of varying dosages.

Indexed as

Antidepressive Agents, TricyclicDepressionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntidepressive Agents, Tricyclic

Identifiers

PMID12917952
PMCPMC7003563
OpenAlexW1516804339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.