Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015
Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence.
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.
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
98 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 327 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of antidepressants for acute adolescent major depressive disorder: a source-verified systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review with cross sectional comparative analysis identifies adverse event reporting discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov and published glaucoma randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Noninvasive neuromodulation for disorders of consciousness: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Deprescribing Antidepressants in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Discontinuation Approaches, Cross-Titration, and Withdrawal Symptoms.Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction procedures for emphysema: A network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Antidepressants in Children and Adolescents: Meta-Review of Efficacy, Tolerability and Suicidality in Acute Treatment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials.Psychological medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- 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 · 2017Pooled it
- Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review.PLoS medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Restoring Study PRGF: a randomized clinical trial on plasma rich in growth factors for knee osteoarthritis.Trials · 2023Trial
38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.