SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Meta-analysis of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) Compared to Tricyclic Antidepressants (TCAs) in the Efficacy and Safety of Anti-depression Therapy in Parkinson's Disease(PD) Patients.

Iran J Pharm Res · 2014-01-01

PMID: 25587309

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

To assess the efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors(SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants(TCAs) in treatment of Parkinsonian depression. A computer-based search was conducted in the databases of PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CochraneControlled Trails Register up to December 2011. The random controlled clinic trials about SSRIs and TCAs in treatment of Parkinsonian depression were collected. Statistical analysis was completed using Review Manager, version 5.0. Five clinic controlled trials were identified for this meta-analysis. There was no significant statistical difference in the response rate of treatment [RR 0.95, 95%CI (0.78, 1.16)] and Hamilton depression score [RR -2.54, 95%CI (-5.35, 0.26)] between two groups. In term of complications, no statistical difference was observed in the insomnia rate between two groups [RR 0.82, 95%CI (0.24, 2.84)]. Moreover, the incidence rate of xerostomia [RR 0.21, 95%CI (0.07, 0.65)] and constipation [RR 0.12, 95%CI(0.02, 0.63)] was lower in SSRIs group rather than those in TCAs group. In general, SSRIs and TCAs have comparable efficacy and equal acceptability in treatment of Parkinson's disease-induced depression. However, SSRIs are superior to TCAs in the terms of xerostomia and constipation.

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.