Tricyclic drugs for depression in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need to identify effective and safe treatments for depression in children and adolescents. While tricyclic drugs are effective in treating depression in adults, individual studies involving children and adolescents have been equivocal. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral tricyclic antidepressants compared to placebo in the treatment of child and adolescent depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966-1997), EMBASE, Excerpta Medica (June 1974-1997), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials register (most recent search 25/1/2000) and bibliographies of previously published reviews and papers describing original research were cross-checked. Current Contents was screened for recent publications. We contacted authors of relevant abstracts in conference proceedings of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and we hand searched the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1978-1999). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of orally administered tricyclic medication with placebo in depressed people aged 6-18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Most studies reported multiple outcome measures including depression scales and clinical global impression scales. For each study the best available depression measure was taken as the index measure of depression outcome. Predetermined criteria were established to assist in the ranking of measures. Where authors reported categorical outcomes we calculated individual and pooled odds ratios for the odds of improvement in treated compared with control subjects. For continuous outcomes pooled effect sizes were calculated as the number of standard deviations by which the change in depression scores for the treatment group exceeded those for the control groups. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials (involving 506 participants) were included. No overall improvement with treatment compared to placebo was seen for children or adolescents (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.25). A statistically significant but small benefit of treatment over placebo was seen in reducing symptoms (effect size (standardised mean difference) = -0.31, 95% confidence interval -0.62 to -0.01). Subgroup analyses suggest a larger benefit among adolescents (effect size = -0.47, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.02), and no benefit among children (effect size = 0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.64). Treatment with a tricyclic antidepressant caused more vertigo (odds ratio = 4.38, 95% confidence interval 2.33 to 8.25), orthostatic hypotension (odds ratio = 6.78, 95% confidence interval 2.06 to 22.26), tremor (odds ratio 6.29, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 22.17) and dry mouth (odds ratio = 5.17, 95% confidence interval 2.68 to 29.99) than did placebo, but no statistically significant difference was found for other possible adverse effects. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest tricyclic antidepressants are not useful in treating depression in pre pubertal children. There is marginal evidence to support the use of tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depression in adolescents, although the magnitude of effect is likely to be moderate at best.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".