ArticleTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2011
Agomelatine in unipolar depression in clinical practice: a retrospective chart review.
Article in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agomelatine (Valdoxan), a synthetic melatonergic receptor agonist at the MT1 and MT2 receptors, was first used in the management of sleep disorder. Its 5HT2C receptor antagonistic properties support its antidepressant potential. It is currently licensed in the UK, Europe and USA for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Although the randomized controlled evidence base for its use is growing, there are no retrospective, naturalistic studies available. We aimed to determine the tolerability and clinical effectiveness of agomelatine in unipolar depression. We also examined whether being refractory to treatment altered clinical outcome. Forty-eight patient records were examined. Twenty-five percent were treatment refractory: Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity score at the start of treatment was 3.81 compared with 3.38 at the end of treatment. Fifty-four percent improved at least minimally; only 12.5% were much or very much improved. Treatment-refractory patients had a poorer outcome with higher discontinuation rates and lower CGI Improvement (p = 0.0205). Treatment-refractory patients also had a higher CGI Severity score at the end of treatment than at treatment commencement (3.92 versus 3.75), although this was not statistically significant.
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.