Review: reboxetine is ineffective and potentially harmful for acute treatment of major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review: reboxetine is ineffective and potentially harmful for acute treatment of major depression QUESTION Question: How clinically effective and safe is reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression and what is the effect of publication bias on reported effect measures?Outcomes: Remission, response, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or placebo. METHODSDesign: Systematic review with meta-analysis.Data sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, trial results databases and regulatory authority websites were searched up until February 2009.Unpublished data were obtained from the manufacturer (Pfi zer, Berlin, Germany), and reference lists of primary and secondary publications were hand searched for additional references.Study selection and analysis: Double blinded randomised controlled trials comparing reboxetine versus placebo or SSRIs for the acute treatment of adults with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV major depressive disorder were included.Trials had to last at least 6 weeks for inclusion.Selected trials had at least one prespecifi ed outcome and were published in English, French or German (or any other language providing that relevance could be ascertained from the English title or abstract).Response and remission were defi ned according to the primary studies.All of the studies used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and defi ned 'response' as a reduction in score of ≥50% from baseline and 'remission' as a reduction in score below an absolute threshold at study end (score ≤10 in all trials except one, which used a threshold of ≤10).Data were extracted for intention-to-treat groups.Where appropriate, data were pooled and meta-analyses performed using random effects methods in SAS version 9.1.3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".