ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Clinical efficacy of Vortioxetine and escitalopram in the treatment of depression.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Escitalopram versus other antidepressive agents for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Safety of Vortioxetine for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder in the Real World: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Depression clinical trials worldwide: a systematic analysis of the ICTRP and comparison with ClinicalTrials.gov.Translational psychiatry · 2024Review
- The Role of Vortioxetine in the Treatment of Depressive Symptoms in General Hospital Psychiatry: A Case-Series and PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Safety and effectiveness of vortioxetine for major depressive disorder: Real-world evidence from a population-based study in South Korea.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study was aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine hydrobromide in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: One hundred and eighty patients with the newly diagnosed depression in our hospital between August 2018 and August 2019 were selected and randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, 90 each group. The control group was treated with escitalopram, and the observation group was treated with voltaxetine. The efficacy and adverse reactions were evaluated by the Hamilton Depression scale-17 (HAMD-17), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression (PDQ-D), and treatment emergent symptom scale (TESS) before treatment and at the end of the 8th and 24th week after treatment. Results: At the end of the 8th and 24th week after treatment, the HAMD-17 scores of the two groups were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05); at the end of the 8th and 24th week after treatment, the PDQ-D and SDS scores of the two groups were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05), and the above scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: Voltaxetine can improve cognitive function and clinical symptoms of patients with severe depression and has high safety, which is worth clinical attention.
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.