Conclusion Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine .
Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate .
In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials , results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine
Background Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited .
A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine , the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share , has been undertaken .
In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal , indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go .
We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine , fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder ( MDD ) , and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions .
Indirect comparison in evaluating relative efficacy illustrated by antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery.
This paper aims to explore the potential usefulness and limitations of indirect comparisons in evaluating the relative efficacy of interventions . From a systematic review of antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery , we identified 11 sets of r and omized trials that can be used to compare antibiotics both directly and indirectly . The discrepancy between the direct and the indirect comparison is defined as the absolute value of difference in log odds ratio . The adjusted indirect comparison has the advantages that the prognostic factors of participants in different trials can be partially taken into account and more uncertainty be incorporated into its result by providing a wider confidence interval . However , considerable discrepancies exist between the direct and the adjusted indirect comparisons . When there is no direct comparison , the adjusted indirect method may be used to obtain some evidence about the relative efficacy of competing interventions , although such indirect results should be interpreted with great caution . Further empirical and method ologic research is needed to explore the validity and generalizability of the adjusted indirect comparison for evaluating different interventions
Conclusion Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine .
Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate .
In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials , results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine
Background Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited .
A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine , the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share , has been undertaken .
In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal , indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go .
We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine , fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder ( MDD ) , and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions .