Cochrane · systematic review · CD008591
Second‐generation antidepressants for treatment of seasonal affective disorder
Nussbaumer-Streit, B, Thaler, K, Chapman, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
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
12
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 25%Low 3 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%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
Current version onlyFluoxetine compared with placebo for seasonal affective disorder
Population: adults with seasonal affective disorder
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Response (> 50% improvement on 29‐item HAM‐D SIGH‐SAD) Fluoxetine vs placebo | RR 1.62 [0.92, 2.83] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical Global Impression – Improvement score Fluoxetine vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Fluoxetine vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Remission Fluoxetine vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Speed of onset of response Fluoxetine vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall adverse events 5 weeks Fluoxetine vs placebo | RR 1.07 [0.95, 1.21] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fluoxetine compared with light therapy for seasonal affective disorder
Population: adults with seasonal affective disorder
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Response (> 50% improvement on 24‐item HAM‐D SIGH‐SAD) Fluoxetine vs light therapy | RR 0.98 [0.77, 1.24] | 2 studies · 136 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical Global Impression – Improvement score Fluoxetine vs light therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life (SF‐20 and Q‐LES‐Q) Fluoxetine vs light therapy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 96 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Remission (response plus end score 8 or less) Fluoxetine vs light therapy | RR 0.81 [0.39, 1.71] | 2 studies · 136 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Time to onset of response Fluoxetine vs light therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events (at least 1 treatment‐emergent adverse event) Fluoxetine vs light therapy | RR 0.97 [0.78, 1.22] | 1 study · 96 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Comparison
Population: Adults with seasonal affective disorder
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Response (> 50% improvement on 29‐item HAM‐D SIGH‐SAD) Five weeks | RR 1.62 [0.92, 2.83] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Remission | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall adverse effects Five weeks | RR 1.07 [0.95, 1.21] | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Comparison
Population: Adults with seasonal affective disorder
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Response (> 50% improvement on 24‐item HAM‐D SIGH‐SAD) Five to eight weeks | RR 0.98 [0.77, 1.24] | 2 studies · 146 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Remission (response plus end score eight or less) Five to eight weeks | RR 0.81 [0.39, 1.71] | 2 studies · 146 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Quality of life (SF‐20 & Q‐LES‐Q) Eight weeks | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse effects (at least one treatment‐emergent adverse effect) Eight weeks | RR 0.97 [0.78, 1.22] | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |