We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute ( six to 12 weeks ) , early ( one to four weeks ) , or longer term follow-up ( four to six months ) .
Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline , imipramine and older ADs as a class , but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum .
Some possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist , but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings .
In terms of early response to treatment ( one to four weeks ) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine .
However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point .
BACKGROUND Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) and has been studied in many r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) .
However , these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic review s of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group , and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone .
The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics ( TCAs ) , SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents .
OBJECTIVES 1 .
To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2  .
To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3 .
To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents .
Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.
BACKGROUND Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings . In this study , we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials . METHODS We examined a consecutive series of 332 r and omized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals . Each eligible study was independently review ed for method ological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains : r and omization , outcomes , eligibility criteria , interventions and statistical issues . Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant . For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome , we defined a " positive " study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure . We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results , while controlling for study quality and sample size . RESULTS Among the 332 r and omized trials , there were 158 drug trials , 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies . In 122 ( 37 % ) of the trials , authors declared industry funding . An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product ( odds ratio [ OR ] 1.9 , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 1.3 - 3.5 ) . The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size ( adjusted OR 1.8 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 3.0 ) . There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials ( OR 8.0 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 53.2 ) and drug trials ( OR 1.6 , 95 % CI 1.1 - 2.8 ) , both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result ( relative OR 5.0 , 95 % CI 0.7 - 37.5 , p = 0.14 ) . INTERPRETATION Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings , both in medical trials and surgical interventions
We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute ( six to 12 weeks ) , early ( one to four weeks ) , or longer term follow-up ( four to six months ) .
Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline , imipramine and older ADs as a class , but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum .
Some possibly clinical ly meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist , but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings .
In terms of early response to treatment ( one to four weeks ) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine .
However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point .
BACKGROUND Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) and has been studied in many r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) .
However , these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic review s of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group , and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone .
The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics ( TCAs ) , SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents .
OBJECTIVES 1 .
To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2  .
To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3 .
To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents .