A metaregression analysis indicated that , after adjusting for possible confounders , studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were positively associated with treatment effect , indicating a significant advantage for fluoxetine .
The evidence that the outcome of fluoxetine trials varied according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or a reference one suggests the presence of bias
The present study investigated whether the outcome of r and omized clinical trials study ing fluoxetine favored fluoxetine , where this was the experimental agent , and favored comparator antidepressants in trials where fluoxetine was the reference agent .
A double‐blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of milnacipran and fluoxetine in depressed inpatients
This double-blind , r and omised , multicentre study compared the antidepressant efficacy and safety of two doses of milnacipran ( 100 mg/day and 200 mg/day ) and fluoxetine ( 20 mg/day ) in 289 in patients with endogenous depression . After a placebo washout period of 4–7 days , assessment s were performed weekly during ; the first 4 weeks , and then after 6 , 8 and 12 weeks , using the 17-itein Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HDRS ) . the Montgomery - Åsberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) and the Clinical Global Impression ( CGI ) . HDRS total score was reduced by a mean of 14.8 in the milnacipran 100 mg/day group , 12.9 in the milnacipran 200 mg/day group and 12.1 in the fluoxetine  20 mg/day group . MADRS total score decreased by 17.4 , 15.8 and 14.6 , respectively . No significant difference could be shown between the three treatment groups for either the HDRS or MADRS total scores . However , the time-by-time change showed a trend in favour of milnacipran 100 mg/day , which was found significantly superior to fluoxetine at day 28 for several converging parameters ( MADRS , CGI-3 ) . Overall , efficacy ratings for all parameters were highest for milnacipran 100 mg/day , followed by milnacipran 200 mg/day and fluoxetinc 20 mg/day . Side-effect profiles were not significantly different between groups except for a significantly greater frequency of dose-related increase hi heart rate ≥ 100 bpm in milnacipran recipients and a significantly greater weight loss in fluoxetine recipients
A metaregression analysis indicated that , after adjusting for possible confounders , studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were positively associated with treatment effect , indicating a significant advantage for fluoxetine .
The evidence that the outcome of fluoxetine trials varied according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or a reference one suggests the presence of bias
The present study investigated whether the outcome of r and omized clinical trials study ing fluoxetine favored fluoxetine , where this was the experimental agent , and favored comparator antidepressants in trials where fluoxetine was the reference agent .