2011
DOI: 10.1002/hup.1172
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An open, non‐randomised comparison of escitalopram and duloxetine for the treatment of subjects with Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Abstract: Implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(63 reference statements)
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…TEAEs were measured and nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, and somnolence were reported as the most frequent AEs (Figure 2). One study reported suicidal ideation, although no statistical significance was found between duloxetine and placebo groups (69). Duloxetine was more effective, safe and tolerated than placebo or other antidepressants (escitalopram and venlafaxine) ( Table 1).…”
Section: Generalized Anxiety Disordermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TEAEs were measured and nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, and somnolence were reported as the most frequent AEs (Figure 2). One study reported suicidal ideation, although no statistical significance was found between duloxetine and placebo groups (69). Duloxetine was more effective, safe and tolerated than placebo or other antidepressants (escitalopram and venlafaxine) ( Table 1).…”
Section: Generalized Anxiety Disordermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 278 studies were initially identified through the electronic search. First pass screening eliminated, leaving 30 studies (Stahl et al ., ; Koponen et al ., , ; Allgulander et al ., , ; Hartford et al ., , ; Russell et al ., , ; Davidson et al ., ; De Berardis et al ., ; Hoschl and Svestka, ; Norman and Olver, ; Pollack et al ., ; Rynn et al ., ; Trivedi et al ., ; Katzman, ; Kornstein et al ., ; Nicolini et al ., ; Simon et al ., , ; Pangallo et al ., ; Wu et al ., , ; Bodkin et al ., ; Piero and Locati, ; Sheehan et al ., ; Karaiskos et al ., ; Mavranezouli et al ., ; Alaka et al ., ) were considered potentially relevant for further inspection. After screening the full text, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Hartford et al ., ; Koponen et al ., ; Davidson et al ., ; Rynn et al ., ; Nicolini et al ., ; Wu et al ., ; Alaka et al ., ) ( n = 2,674) were available for meta‐analyses.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ukoliko se porede rezultati prikazane studije sa rezltatima publikovanih kontrolisanih -duplo slepih, randomizovanih, multicentričnih kliničkih studija koje ispitivale efikasnost pregabalina kod pacijenata sa GAP uočava se da postoje značajne sličnosti. Naime, u većini navedenih studija došlo je do komparabilnog umanjenja skora na primenjenim instrumentima za procenu kliničkog stanja pacijenata [12][13][14] .…”
Section: Diskusijaunclassified