Cochrane · systematic review · CD004185
Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression
Magni, LR, Purgato, M, Gastaldon, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
Common Mental DisordersAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
130
current version
GRADE rated
117
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 13 · 10%Very low 11 · 8.5%Low 18 · 13.8%Moderate 88 · 67.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Fluoxetine compared to TCAs
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs TCAs | OR 0.97 [0.77, 1.22] | 24 studies · 2124 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs TCAs | no estimate extracted | 50 studies · 3393 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs TCAs | OR 0.79 [0.65, 0.96] | 49 studies · 4194 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs TCAs | OR 0.55 [0.4, 0.75] | 40 studies · 3647 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs TCAs | OR 1.29 [0.96, 1.72] | 33 studies · 2911 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to ABT‐200
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs ABT‐200 | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs ABT‐200 | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 141 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs ABT‐200 | OR 0.18 [0.08, 0.39] | 1 study · 144 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs ABT‐200 | OR 0.24 [0.03, 2.2] | 1 study · 144 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs ABT‐200 | OR 0.08 [0.02, 0.27] | 1 study · 144 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fluoxetine compared to agomelatine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs agomelatine | OR 1.44 [0.99, 2.09] | 1 study · 515 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs agomelatine | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1213 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs agomelatine | OR 1.31 [0.89, 1.94] | 2 studies · 785 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs agomelatine | OR 1.08 [0.41, 2.88] | 2 studies · 785 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs agomelatine | OR 1.51 [0.74, 3.07] | 2 studies · 785 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to amineptine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs amineptine | OR 0.37 [0.13, 1.04] | 1 study · 63 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs amineptine | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs amineptine | OR 0.61 [0.17, 2.21] | 2 studies · 232 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs amineptine | OR 1.04 [0.19, 5.57] | 1 study · 63 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ (Copy) Fluoxetine vs amineptine | OR 0.52 [0.03, 7.82] | 2 studies · 232 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to amisulpride
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs amisulpride | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs amisulpride | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 268 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs amisulpride | OR 1.39 [0.81, 2.38] | 1 study · 281 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs amisulpride | OR 1.16 [0.43, 3.1] | 1 study · 281 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs amisulpride | OR 0.77 [0.33, 1.82] | 1 study · 281 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fluoxetine compared to bupropion
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs bupropion | OR 0.83 [0.48, 1.43] | 2 studies · 436 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs bupropion | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs bupropion | OR 1 [0.67, 1.48] | 2 studies · 436 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs bupropion | OR 1.16 [0.33, 4.1] | 2 studies · 436 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs bupropion | OR 1.01 [0.45, 2.25] | 2 studies · 436 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to citalopram
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs citalopram | OR 0.6 [0.2, 1.79] | 1 study · 59 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs citalopram | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 661 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs citalopram | OR 0.87 [0.6, 1.27] | 3 studies · 732 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs citalopram | OR 0.87 [0.48, 1.56] | 3 studies · 732 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs citalopram | OR 0.64 [0.34, 1.2] | 3 studies · 732 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to Crocus sativus
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs Crocus sativus | OR 0.53 [0.11, 2.6] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs Crocus sativus | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs Crocus sativus | OR 1 [0.06, 17.18] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs Crocus sativus | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs Crocus sativus | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Fluoxetine compared to duloxetine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs duloxetine | OR 1.41 [0.61, 3.25] | 1 study · 103 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs duloxetine | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs duloxetine | OR 0.9 [0.53, 1.52] | 2 studies · 532 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs duloxetine | OR 3.33 [0.93, 12.11] | 2 studies · 432 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs duloxetine | OR 0.28 [0.07, 1.23] | 2 studies · 532 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to escitalopram
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs escitalopram | OR 1.02 [0.56, 1.85] | 1 study · 240 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs escitalopram | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 231 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs escitalopram | OR 1.53 [1, 2.37] | 2 studies · 578 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs escitalopram | OR 1.74 [0.46, 6.53] | 2 studies · 578 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs escitalopram | OR 1.17 [0.64, 2.12] | 2 studies · 578 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to fluvoxamine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs fluvoxamine | OR 0.95 [0.52, 1.74] | 1 study · 177 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs fluvoxamine | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs fluvoxamine | OR 71 [0.36, 1.37] | 2 studies · 284 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs fluvoxamine | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs fluvoxamine | OR 1.04 [0.14, 7.71] | 1 study · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to hypericum
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs hypericum | OR 0.98 [0.55, 1.73] | 6 studies · 717 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs hypericum | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 648 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs hypericum | OR 1.04 | 5 studies · 679 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs hypericum | OR 4.7 [0.22, 99.39] | 2 studies · 401 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs hypericum | OR 1.21 [0.56, 2.64] | 5 studies · 679 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to maprotiline
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs maprotiline | OR 1.95 [0.91, 4.18] | 2 studies · 163 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs maprotiline | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 433 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs maprotiline | OR 1.75 [0.9, 3.41] | 4 studies · 351 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs maprotiline | OR 0.53 [0.15, 1.93] | 3 studies · 209 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs maprotiline | OR 2.54 [0.33, 19.9] | 3 studies · 209 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to mianserin
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs mianserin | OR 0.8 [0.27, 2.38] | 1 study · 53 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs mianserin | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 128 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs mianserin | OR 0.63 [0.18, 2.25] | 2 studies · 93 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs mianserin | OR 2.27 [0.38, 13.63] | 1 study · 53 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs mianserin | OR 1.05 [0.23, 4.7] | 1 study · 53 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to milnacipran
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs milnacipran | OR 1.2 [0.78, 1.84] | 2 studies · 370 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs milnacipran | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 213 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs milnacipran | OR 0.98 [0.68, 1.42] | 3 studies · 560 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs milnacipran | OR 1.25 [0.68, 2.3] | 3 studies · 560 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs milnacipran | OR 1.5 [0.81, 2.76] | 3 studies · 560 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to mirtazapine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs mirtazapine | OR 1.46 [1.04, 2.04] | 4 studies · 600 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs mirtazapine | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs mirtazapine | OR 0.9 [0.55, 1.47] | 3 studies · 301 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs mirtazapine | OR 1.45 [0.71, 2.96] | 4 studies · 600 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs mirtazapine | OR 0.95 [0.55, 1.64] | 4 studies · 600 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to moclobemide
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs moclobemide | OR 1.27 [0.92, 1.75] | 7 studies · 721 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs moclobemide | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 540 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs moclobemide | OR 1.01 [0.7, 1.45] | 7 studies · 721 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs moclobemide | OR 0.7 [0.32, 1.56] | 6 studies · 679 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs moclobemide | OR 1.07 [0.64, 1.8] | 7 studies · 721 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to nefazodone
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs nefazodone | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs nefazodone | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 271 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs nefazodone | OR 0.54 [0.22, 1.31] | 3 studies · 161 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs nefazodone | OR 0.71 [0.05, 10.71] | 3 studies · 161 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs nefazodone | OR 0.76 [0.32, 1.81] | 4 studies · 286 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to paroxetine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs paroxetine | OR 1.23 [0.93, 1.65] | 9 studies · 1574 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs paroxetine | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 2061 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs paroxetine | OR 0.98 [0.81, 1.2] | 10 studies · 1848 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs paroxetine | OR 0.75 [0.41, 1.39] | 4 studies · 1005 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs paroxetine | OR 0.85 [0.62, 1.16] | 9 studies · 1509 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to phenelzine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs phenelzine | OR 1.42 [0.27, 7.34] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs phenelzine | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs phenelzine | OR 0.18 [0.01, 4.01] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs phenelzine | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs phenelzine | OR 0.32 [0.01, 8.26] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fluoxetine compared to pramipexole
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs pramipexole | OR 0.55 [0.24, 1.26] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs pramipexole | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs pramipexole | OR 0.12 [0.03, 0.42] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs pramipexole | OR 0.49 [0.05, 4.51] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs pramipexole | OR 0.06 [0.01, 0.5] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fluoxetine compared to reboxetine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs reboxetine | OR 0.77 [0.55, 1.1] | 3 studies · 721 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs reboxetine | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 205 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs reboxetine | OR 0.6 [0.44, 0.82] | 4 studies · 764 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs reboxetine | OR 0.92 [0.47, 1.77] | 3 studies · 464 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs reboxetine | OR 0.41 [0.15, 1.09] | 2 studies · 211 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to sertraline
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs sertraline | OR 1.37 [1.08, 1.74] | 6 studies · 1188 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs sertraline | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 1160 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs sertraline | OR 1.17 [0.93, 1.49] | 9 studies · 1591 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs sertraline | OR 1.09 [0.68, 1.77] | 5 studies · 1056 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs sertraline | OR 1.25 [0.92, 1.7] | 9 studies · 1591 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to tianeptine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs tianeptine | OR 1.12 [0.75, 1.67] | 3 studies · 387 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs tianeptine | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 730 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs tianeptine | OR 0.96 [0.69, 1.33] | 3 studies · 830 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs tianeptine | OR 0.82 [0.27, 2.53] | 3 studies · 830 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs tianeptine | OR 1.13 [0.71, 1.8] | 3 studies · 830 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to trazodone
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs trazodone | OR 0.49 [0.13, 1.86] | 3 studies · 110 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs trazodone | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 203 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs trazodone | OR 0.51 [0.23, 1.13] | 4 studies · 230 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs trazodone | OR 0.23 [0.04, 1.51] | 2 studies · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs trazodone | OR 0.66 [0.2, 2.19] | 3 studies · 110 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fluoxetine compared to venlafaxine
Population: patients with depression
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to respond (reduction ≥ 50% on HDRS) Fluoxetine vs venlafaxine | OR 1.29 [1.1, 1.51] | 12 studies · 3387 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Endpoint score (HDRS or MADRS) Fluoxetine vs venlafaxine | no estimate extracted | 13 studies · 3097 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ total ‐ Fluoxetine vs venlafaxine | OR 0.89 [0.74, 1.06] | 14 studies · 2683 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ inefficacy ‐ Fluoxetine vs venlafaxine | OR 1.31 [0.91, 1.89] | 13 studies · 2640 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Failure to complete ‐ side effects ‐ Fluoxetine vs venlafaxine | OR 0.72 [0.56, 0.94] | 13 studies · 2640 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |