Pharmacologic treatment of XXXX in @entity15 .

@entity1 @entity308 @entity390 @entity5829 @entity903 @entity10 @entity15
BACKGROUND: @entity308 is a common problem in @entity1 with @entity15 ( @entity15 ). It is unclear which pharmacologic treatment is the most effective and the least harmful. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic treatments for @entity308 in @entity1 with @entity15 . SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane @entity15 Group's Trials Register (June 2010), reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Regulatory agencies were used as additional sources of information on adverse effects. SELECTION CRITERIA: Adequately and quasi-randomized controlled blinded or unblinded trials in @entity1 and adults with @entity15 . EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTION: pharmacologic treatments for @entity308 without restrictions regarding dose, route of administration, frequency, or duration. Control intervention: placebo treatment or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects from the trials.Information about study population, type of intervention, outcome measures, and study design were extracted from the selected studies. Trial quality was evaluated with the criteria: randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, handling of incomplete outcome data, freedom from selective reporting and freedom from other bias.The impact of missing data on the study results was explored with sensitivity analyses comparing the results from the analyses of study completers with those from best- and worst-case scenarios. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (70 @entity1 ) were included. One trial (28 @entity1 ) compared treatment with @entity5829 for five weeks to placebo. The other trial (42 @entity1 ) compared treatment with @entity903 for twelve weeks to placebo. Both trials had a significant number of @entity1 lost to follow-up or with missing outcome measurements.There was a trend towards efficacy of both treatments compared to placebo, but this difference was not statistically significant except for one outcome. Confidence intervals were wide in all analyses and our sensitivity analysis showed that the missing data may have had an important effect in both trials, with large differences between best-case and worst-case scenarios for all assessed outcomes.Both treatments were associated with adverse effects, with significantly more @entity1 treated with @entity903 suffering from @entity390 or @entity10 . Given the difference in trial duration and type of drug, we decided not to perform a meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both @entity5829 and @entity903 show a trend towards efficacy in @entity308 in @entity15 the short term, but both treatments were associated with adverse effects, with significantly more @entity1 treated with @entity903 suffering from @entity390 or @entity10 . Further clinical research on the treatment of @entity308 in @entity15 is clearly needed. Future trials should address the efficacy and tolerability in the long term and compare antidepressant treatments head-to-head.
