Bupropion versus Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors for Treatment of Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and risks of bupropion and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in adults with depression. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-September 1999), Embase (1980-August 1999), PsyclNFO (1887-August 1999), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-August 1999), and CIANHL databases were searched. References from the selected citations, review articles, and the manufacturer were also screened. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials evaluating bupropion versus SSRIs for depression in adults. Studies were assessed independently in duplicate. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA ANALYSIS: Data are reported as absolute weighted mean differences or relative risks and 95% confidence intervals comparing bupropion relative to SSRIs. Data not combined are presented qualitatively. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six full-length studies were included of 257 citations identified. SSRI comparators were fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine. No differences in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impressions Scale for Improvement of illness (CGI-I) were found, but data were not able to be quantitatively combined. The absolute weighted mean differences were 0.10 (95% CI -0.2 to 0.4) for the CGI for Severity of Illness and 0.37 (95% CI -0.85 to 1.6) for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety measurements. Relative risks of bupropion compared with SSRIs were 0.6 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.89), 0.31 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.57), and 0.27 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.48) for nausea, diarrhea, and somnolence, respectively. Sexual arousal disorder, orgasmic dysfunction, and sexual desire disorder occurred less with bupropion than with SSRIs, with relative risks of 0.46 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.83), 0.22 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.40), and 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.84), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion and SSRIs have similar effectiveness; however, bupropion was associated with less nausea, diarrhea, somnolence, and sexual dysfunction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".