Search strategy
To identify and retrieve all potentially relevant literature describing the outcomes of SSRIs and TCAs for treatment of Parkinsonian depression, we performed a literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trails Register (CCTR), and Google scholar up to the end of 2011. The search terms were: Parkinson’s disease AND depression AND (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitorsOR paroxetine OR fluoxetine OR citalopram OR sertraline OR escitalopram) AND (Tricyclic antidepressants OR imipramine OR amitriptyline OR doxepin OR clomipramine OR desipramine OR nortriptyline).
Identification of studies
Studies that met the following criteria wereeligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis:(
1) primary documents published at home and abroad; (
2) randomized clinical trial (RCT) and/or clinical control trial (CCT); (
3)studies that reported the year of publication; (
4) studies that stipulated the sample size; (
5) studies that clearly elucidate the diagnostic criteria of PD; (
6) SSRIs and TCAs therapy involved in treatment of PD; (
7) studies that reportedthe comparison of HAM-D score, life quality and other outcomes; (
8)data collected scientifically; (
9) data analyzed correctly.
We excluded trials in which subjects suffered from other mental disorders since the principle aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of Parkinsonian depression treatment. Trials thatincluded formal psychotherapy in combination with antidepressants were excluded but those that randomized psychotherapy against antidepressants and analyzed data separately were included. Studies comparing SSRIs with older antidepressants which do not block monoamine reuptake were excluded in the meta-analysis as they have varying different pharmacological mechanisms. Newer antidepressants such as nefazodone, venlafaxine and mirtazapine were also excluded because their heterogeneous pharmacology and remain relatively infrequently used.
Literature evaluation and data extraction
The quality of studies was evaluated according to [Cochrane reviewer’s handbook]as follows: (
1) the random method described or not; (
2) the allocation concealment method employed or not; (
3) the double-blind method employed or not; (
4) lost follow-up or dropout reported or not; intention to treat analysis(ITT) conducted or not; (
5) baseline was consistent or not. The trials were also assessed according to quality scoring reported by Jadad
et al.(
6). Jadad scoreof more than 3 indicates the high quality of trials.
Two independent investigators assessed eligibility and abstracted the data. When specific variables were not reported within a given study, the authors of the paper were contacted to obtain the missing data. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussing with the third investigator.
Statistical analysis
Outcomes including response rate, insomnia incidence, xerostomia and constipation were pooled by the Mantel-Haenszel method for risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. In addition, the absolute scores of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) were converted into a common unit by calculating the weighted standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Standardized effect sizes were derived by dividing the mean difference in HAMD scores between SSRIs and TCAs subjects of each individual trial. When the RR and SMD were not available in the source papers, authors were contacted.
Statistical heterogeneity of the results from individual studies was examined using Cochran’s Q test(
7) and I
2index (
8). If significant heterogeneity was observed (P≤0.10; I
2>50%), a random effects modelwhichassigns a weight to each study was used to poolthe results together. If homogeneity was identified (P>0.10; I
2<50%), a fixed-effects model was used (a common underlying effect is being pooled).
All analyses were carried out using Review Manager, version 5.0 for Windows. P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically difference.