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 .
Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials
Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates , but findings from different studies are inconsistent . This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials . Outcome measures were classified as " mortality , " " other objective , " " or subjective , " and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity . Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear ( vs. adequate ) r and om-sequence generation ( ratio of odds ratios , 0.89 [ 95 % credible interval { CrI } , 0.82 to 0.96 ] ) and with inadequate or unclear ( vs. adequate ) allocation concealment ( ratio of odds ratios , 0.93 [ CrI , 0.87 to 0.99 ] ) . Lack of or unclear double-blinding ( vs. double-blinding ) was associated with an average of 13 % exaggeration of intervention effects ( ratio of odds ratios , 0.87 [ CrI , 0.79 to 0.96 ] ) , and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies ( SD increase in heterogeneity , 0.14 [ CrI , 0.02 to 0.30 ] ) . For each characteristic , average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes , with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes . This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting , and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics . Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes
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 .