SynthesisDrug safety2009
The general and comparative efficacy and safety of duloxetine in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Duloxetine reduces opioid consumption and pain after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Vortioxetine: a meta-analysis of 12 short-term, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials for the treatment of major depressive disorder.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2015Pooled it
- Duloxetine versus other anti-depressive agents for depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Intensive monitoring of duloxetine: results of a web-based intensive monitoring study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Trial
- Duloxetine versus 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Manipulation of retinoic acid signaling in the nucleus accumbens shell alters rat emotional behavior.Behavioural brain research · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of Duloxetine Monotherapy Compared to Combination Therapy with Other Antidepressants in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Short-Term, Retrospective Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2016Article
- Efficacy comparison of duloxetine and SSRIs at doses approved in Japan.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2015Article
- Infant health and neurodevelopmental outcomes following prenatal exposure to duloxetine.Clinical drug investigation · 2013Article
- Efficacy and safety of duloxetine 60 mg once daily in major depressive disorder: a review with expert commentary.Drugs in context · 2013Review
- Comparative clinical profile of mirtazapine and duloxetine in practical clinical settings in Japan: a 4-week open-label, parallel-group study of major depressive disorder.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2013Article
- The effect of initial duloxetine dosing strategy on nausea in korean patients with major depressive disorder.Psychiatry investigation · 2012Article
- Using NMR approaches to drive the search for new CNS therapeutics.Current opinion in investigational drugs (London, England : 2000) · 2010Review
- Continuation treatment of major depressive disorder: is there a case for duloxetine?Drug design, development and therapy · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSecond-generation antidepressants dominate the management of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Evidence on the general and comparative benefits and harms is still accruing.
objectiveTo systematically review the general and comparative efficacy and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of acute-phase MDD in adults. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychLit, The Cochrane Library, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to July 2009, as well as manually searching reference lists of pertinent review articles and exploring the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research database to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: For efficacy, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing duloxetine with placebo or second-generation antidepressants were included. For safety, both experimental and observational studies were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracts and full-text articles were independently reviewed by two people, one investigator extracted relevant data, and a senior reviewer checked data for completeness and accuracy.
resultsWe included 36 experimental and observational studies and, where sufficient data were available, meta-analyses of RCTs were conducted. Findings indicated that duloxetine is an effective treatment option for acute-phase MDD, with a tolerability profile similar to other second-generation antidepressants. No substantial differences in efficacy and safety appear to exist when duloxetine is compared with other second-generation antidepressants. Overall, about 40% of patients treated with duloxetine achieved remission. Compared with other treatments, duloxetine had frequently higher rates of nausea, vomiting and dry mouth; however, these differences did not lead to higher discontinuation rates compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about rare but severe adverse events.
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not warrant the choice of duloxetine over other second-generation antidepressants based on greater efficacy or safety for patients with acute-phase MDD with or without accompanying symptoms such as pain.
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.