SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Efficacy and acceptability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of depression in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BMC Neurol · 2010-06-21

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-10-49PMID: 20565960

Open accessMeta-Analysis; research-article; Systematic Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants for the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) but data on their efficacy are controversial.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy and acceptability of SSRIs in the treatment of depression in PD.ResultsTen studies were included. In the comparison between SSRIs and Placebo (n = 6 studies), the combined risk ratio (random effects) was 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.77 - 1.55, p = 0.67). In the comparison between SSRIs and Tricyclic Antidepressants (TCAs) (n = 3 studies) the combined risk ratio was 0.75 (0.39 - 1.42, p = 0.37). An acceptability analysis showed that SSRIs were generally well tolerated.ConclusionsThese results suggest that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no differences in efficacy between SSRIs and placebo in the treatment of depression in PD. Due to the limited number of studies and the small sample sizes a type II error (false negative) cannot be excluded. The comparison between SSRIs and TCAs is based on only three studies and further trials with more pragmatic design are needed.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.