SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003
Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beneficial and harmful effects of tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.BMJ mental health · 2024Pooled it
- The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Association Between Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of bupropion for major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials comparison with venlafaxine.Drug design, development and therapy · 2013Pooled it
- Amitriptyline versus placebo for major depressive disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Quetiapine monotherapy in acute phase for major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.BMC psychiatry · 2012Pooled it
- [Antidepressants for treatment of depression in palliative patients : a systematic literature review].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2012Pooled it
- Treatment for depression after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.Journal of neurotrauma · 2009Pooled it
- Exploring New Frontiers in Pharmacological Treatment of Depression: A Review on Recent Advances.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Two Treatment Strategies, Evaluating the Meaningfulness of HAM-D Rating Scale in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Tricyclic antidepressants versus 'active placebo', placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Antidepressant Use and the Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients Without Known Cardiovascular Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Pitfalls of using the risk ratio in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2019Article
- [Tricyclic antidepressants for initial treatment of depressive episodes? Pro].Der Nervenarzt · 2016Article
- Article
- Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes in older people: population based cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.