Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26376805›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence.

Joanna Le Noury, John M Nardo, David Healy, Jon Jureidini, Melissa Raven, Catalin Tufanaru, Elia Abi-Jaoude

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
31.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 327 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  16. Considering benefits and harms of duloxetine for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a meta-analysis of clinical study reports.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Joanna Le NourySchool of Medical Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.
John M NardoEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
David HealySchool of Medical Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.
Jon JureidiniCritical and Ethical Mental Health Research Group, Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Jon.Jureidini@adelaide.edu.au.
Melissa RavenCritical and Ethical Mental Health Research Group, Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Catalin TufanaruJoanna Briggs Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Elia Abi-JaoudeDepartment of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Adelaide · AUBangor University · GBEmory University · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo reanalyse SmithKline Beecham's Study 329 (published by Keller and colleagues in 2001), the primary objective of which was to compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with placebo in the treatment of adolescents with unipolar major depression. The reanalysis under the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative was done to see whether access to and reanalysis of a full dataset from a randomised controlled trial would have clinically relevant implications for evidence based medicine.

designDouble blind randomised placebo controlled trial.

setting12 North American academic psychiatry centres, from 20 April 1994 to 15 February 1998.

participants275 adolescents with major depression of at least eight weeks in duration. Exclusion criteria included a range of comorbid psychiatric and medical disorders and suicidality.

interventionsParticipants were randomised to eight weeks double blind treatment with paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (200-300 mg), or placebo.

main outcome measuresThe prespecified primary efficacy variables were change from baseline to the end of the eight week acute treatment phase in total Hamilton depression scale (HAM-D) score and the proportion of responders (HAM-D score ≤8 or ≥50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) at acute endpoint. Prespecified secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to endpoint in depression items in K-SADS-L, clinical global impression, autonomous functioning checklist, self-perception profile, and sickness impact scale; predictors of response; and number of patients who relapse during the maintenance phase. Adverse experiences were to be compared primarily by using descriptive statistics. No coding dictionary was prespecified.

resultsThe efficacy of paroxetine and imipramine was not statistically or clinically significantly different from placebo for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcome. HAM-D scores decreased by 10.7 (least squares mean) (95% confidence interval 9.1 to 12.3), 9.0 (7.4 to 10.5), and 9.1 (7.5 to 10.7) points, respectively, for the paroxetine, imipramine and placebo groups (P=0.20). There were clinically significant increases in harms, including suicidal ideation and behaviour and other serious adverse events in the paroxetine group and cardiovascular problems in the imipramine group.

conclusionsNeither paroxetine nor high dose imipramine showed efficacy for major depression in adolescents, and there was an increase in harms with both drugs. Access to primary data from trials has important implications for both clinical practice and research, including that published conclusions about efficacy and safety should not be read as authoritative. The reanalysis of Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available to increase the rigour of the evidence base.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdrenergic Uptake InhibitorsAntidepressive Agents, Second-GenerationData Interpretation, StatisticalDouble-Blind MethodEvidence-Based MedicineHumansImipramineMajor Depressive DisorderParoxetinePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic Uptake InhibitorsAntidepressive Agents, Second-GenerationImipramineParoxetine

Identifiers

PMID26376805
PMCPMC4572084
OpenAlexW2097197321

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.