Efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in adults with social anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to estimate the comprehensive efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in adult patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials databases for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy outcome was the mean change of different kinds of scale scores as well as response and remission rates. The secondary outcome was tolerability, defined as the discontinuation rate and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included 13 RCTs. Mean changes in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) total score, fear and avoidance subscale of LSAS scores were all significantly greater in patients with SAD that received paroxetine compared to those received placebo (total: MD = 13.46, 95%CI 10.59-16.32, P < .00001; fear: MD = 6.76, 95%CI 4.89-8.62, P < .00001; avoidance: MD = 6.54, 95%CI 4.63-8.45, P < .00001). Response and remission rates were both significantly greater in patients with SAD that received paroxetine compared to those received placebo (response: OR = 3.02, 95%CI 2.30-3.97, P < .00001; remission: OR = 3.14, 95%CI 2.25-4.39, P < .00001). There was no significant difference in discontinuation rate due to any reason between two groups (OR = 1.06, 95%CI 0.81-1.39, P = .65). Discontinuation rate due to AEs was higher in paroxetine than placebo group (OR = 3.41, 95%CI 2.45-4.72, P < .00001) whereas the rate due to lack of efficacy was higher in placebo as compared with paroxetine group (OR = 0.14, 95%CI 0.09-0.22, P < .00001). The incidence of any AE was significantly increased in patients that received paroxetine (OR = 1.83, 95%CI 1.43-2.35, P < .00001). CONCLUSION: Paroxetine was an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for adult patients with SAD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".