SynthesisClinical drug investigation2016
Vortioxetine versus Duloxetine in the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision Mental Health: Predicting Heterogeneous Treatment Effects for Depression through Data Integration.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2025Article
- The challenges of integrating diverse data sources: A case study in major depression.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 2024Article
- Εfficacy and safety of vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) in the treatment of adult patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and a meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Vortioxetine as a new frontier in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: a review and update.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2021Review
- Automatic extraction of quantitative data from ClinicalTrials.gov to conduct meta-analyses.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveVortioxetine and duloxetine are two new antidepressant drugs that have been used clinically in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The objectives of this meta-analysis were to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine compared with duloxetine in MDD.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically reviewed to compare vortioxetine with duloxetine in terms of efficacy and tolerability in patients with MDD. Results were expressed as the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and weighted mean difference (WMD). Pooled estimates were calculated by using a fixed-effects model or a randomized-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among studies.
resultsA total of five RCTs involving 2287 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that duloxetine was associated with a higher response rate than vortioxetine, as well as showing a similar remission rate with vortioxetine. The changes from baseline in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D24), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I), CGI-Severity scale (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores were significantly greater in the duloxetine group than in the vortioxetine group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was significantly higher in the duloxetine group than in the vortioxetine group.
conclusionDuloxetine was more effective but less well-tolerated than vortioxetine in MDD. Considering the potential limitations of this meta-analysis, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
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.