Lithium or an atypical antipsychotic drug in the management of treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review and economic evaluation

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 17, Issue 54, 2013, Pages 1-34

  Edwards, Steven J ^a  

^a British Medical Journal Technology Assessment Group   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTIC AGENT; FLUOXETINE; LITHIUM; OLANZAPINE; PLACEBO; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEPRESSION; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESPONSE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MAJOR DEPRESSION; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADULT; ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; ANTIPSYCHOTIC AGENTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, TREATMENT-RESISTANT; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LITHIUM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITORS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 84888608579     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta17540     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. http://www.who.int/mental_health/management/depression/definition/en/
2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009) Depression: the treatment and management of depression in adults (update). CG90. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
3. DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision. DOI: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349
4. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
5. Nelson JC, Papakostas GI. Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials. Am J Psychiatry. 2009; 166: 980-991.
6. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Int Med. 2010;152. Epub 24 March.
7. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
8. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, Djulbegovic B; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):22-25.
9. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719-748.
10. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-188.
11. Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multiparameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med. 2003 Oct 15;22(19):2995-3016.
12. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004 Oct 30;23(20):3105-3124.
13. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):897-900.
14. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde, A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Statist Soc B. 2002; 64(3):583-639.
15. Dempster AP. The direct use of likelihood for significance testing. Stat Comp 1997; 7: 247-252.
16. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurgery Psychiatry. 1960;23:56-62.
17. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Apr;134:382-389.
18. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158.
19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in metaanalyses. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-560.
20. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-634.
21. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Spring;21(2):240-245.
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal June 2008 (reference N1618). http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf
23. Age adjusted utility /adjusting utility for age Health Survey of England 1996 http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/survey96/tab5-29.htm