Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Amitriptilina para la fibromialgia en adultos

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Braz 2013 {published data only}

Braz AS, Morais LC, Paula AP, Diniz MF, Almeida RN. Effects of Panax ginseng extract in patients with fibromyalgia: a 12‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 2013;35(1):21‐8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbp.2013.01.004]CENTRAL

Carette 1986 {published data only}

Carette S, McCain GA, Bell DA, Fam AG. Evaluation of amitriptyline in primary fibrositis. A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1986;29(5):655‐9. CENTRAL

Carette 1994 {published data only}

Carette S, Bell MJ, Reynolds WJ, Haraoui B, McCain GA, Bykerk VP, et al. Comparison of amitriptyline, cyclobenzaprine, and placebo in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A randomized, double‐blind clinical trial. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1994;37(1):32‐40. CENTRAL

Carette 1995 {published data only}

Carette S, Oakson G, Guimont C, Steriade M. Sleep electroencephalography and the clinical response to amitriptyline in patients with fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1995;38(9):1211‐7. CENTRAL

de Zanette 2014 {published data only}

Cauma W (Principle investigator). Immune‐Pineal Axis Function in Fibromyalgia. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02041455?term=NCT02041455&rank=1 (accessed 30 Mar 15)2014. [CTG: NCT02041455]CENTRAL
de Zanette SA, Vercelino R, Laste G, Rozisky JR, Schwertner A, Machado CB, et al. Melatonin analgesia is associated with improvement of the descending endogenous pain‐modulating system in fibromyalgia: a phase II, randomized, double‐dummy, controlled trial. BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology 2014;15:40. [DOI: 10.1186/2050‐6511‐15‐40]CENTRAL

Ginsberg 1996 {published data only}

Ginsberg F, Mancaux A, Joos E, Vanhove P, Famey J‐P. A randomized placebo‐controlled trial of sustained‐release amitriptyline in fibromyalgia. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain 1996;4(3):37‐47. CENTRAL

Goldenberg 1986 {published data only}

Goldenberg DL, Felson DT, Dinerman H. A randomized, controlled trial of amitriptyline and naproxen in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1986;29(11):1371‐7. CENTRAL

Goldenberg 1996 {published data only}

Goldenberg D, Mayskiy M, Mossey C, Ruthazer R, Schmid C. A randomized, double‐blind crossover trial of fluoxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1996;39(11):1852‐9. CENTRAL

Hannonen 1998 {published data only}

Hannonen P, Malminiemi K, Yli‐Kerttula U, Isomeri R, Roponen P. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of moclobemide and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia in females without psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Rheumatology 1998;37(12):1279‐86. CENTRAL

Fors 2002 {published data only}

Fors EA, Sexton H, Götestam KG. The effect of guided imagery and amitriptyline on daily fibromyalgia pain: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Psychiatric Research 2002;36(3):179‐87. CENTRAL

Hampf 1989 {published data only}

Hampf G, Bowsher D, Nurmikko T. Distigmine and amitriptyline in the treatment of chronic pain. Anesthesia Progress 1989;36(2):58‐62. CENTRAL

Heymann 2001 {published data only}

Heymann RE, Helfenstein M, Feldman D. A double‐blind, randomized, controlled study of amitriptyline, nortriptyline and placebo in patients with fibromyalgia. An analysis of outcome measures. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2001;19(6):697‐702. CENTRAL

Isomeri 1993 {published data only}

Isomeri R, Mikkelsson M, Latikka P, Kammonen K. Effects of amitriptyline and cardiovascular fitness training on pain in patients with primary fibromyalgia. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain 1993;1(3/4):253‐60. CENTRAL

Jaeschke 1991 {published data only}

Jaeschke R, Adachi J, Guyatt G, Keller J, Wong B. Clinical usefulness of amitriptyline in fibromyalgia: the results of 23 N‐of‐1 randomized controlled trials. Journal of Rheumatology 1991;18(3):447‐51. CENTRAL

Kempenaers 1994 {published data only}

Kempenaers C, Simenon G, Vander Elst M, Fransolet L, Mingard P, de Maertelaer V, et al. Effect of an antidiencephalon immune serum on pain and sleep in primary fibromyalgia. Neuropsychobiology 1994;30(2‐3):66‐72. CENTRAL

McQuay 1992 {published data only}

McQuay HJ, Carroll D, Glynn CJ. Low dose amitriptyline in the treatment of chronic pain. Anaesthesia 1992;47(8):646‐52. CENTRAL

McQuay 1993 {published data only}

McQuay HJ, Carroll D, Glynn CJ. Dose‐response for analgesic effect of amitriptyline in chronic pain. Anaesthesia 1993;48(3):281‐5. CENTRAL

Özerbil 2006 {published data only}

Özerbil O, Okudan N, Gökbel H, Levendoğlu F. Comparison of the effects of two antidepressants on exercise performance of the female patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical Rheumatology 2006;25(4):495‐7. CENTRAL

Pilowsky 1982 {published data only}

Pilowsky I, Hallett EC, Bassett DL, Thomas PG, Penhall RK. A controlled study of amitriptyline in the treatment of chronic pain. Pain 1982;14(2):169‐79. CENTRAL

Pilowsky 1990 {published data only}

Pilowsky I, Barrow CG. A controlled study of psychotherapy and amitriptyline used individually and in combination in the treatment of chronic intractable, 'psychogenic' pain. Pain 1990;40(1):3‐19. CENTRAL

Scudds 1989 {published data only}

Scudds RA, McCain GA, Rollman GB, Harth M. Improvements in pain responsiveness in patients with fibrositis after successful treatment with amitriptyline. Journal of Rheumatology Supplement 1989;19:98‐103. CENTRAL

Zitman 1990 {published data only}

Zitman FG, Linssen AC, Edelbroek PM, Stijnen T. Low dose amitriptyline in chronic pain: the gain is modest. Pain 1990;42(1):35‐42. CENTRAL

Zitman 1991 {published data only}

Zitman FG, Linssen AC, Edelbroek PM, Van Kempen GM. Does addition of low‐dose flupentixol enhance the analgetic effects of low‐dose amitriptyline in somatoform pain disorder?. Pain 1991;47(1):25‐30. CENTRAL

Ҫapaci 2002 {published data only}

Ҫapaci K, Hepgüler S. Comparison of the effects of amitriptyline and paroxetine in the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome. The Pain Clinic 2002;14(3):223‐8. CENTRAL

References to studies awaiting assessment

Ataoğlu 1997 {published data only}

Ataoglu S, Ataoglu A, Erdogan F, Sarac J. Comparison of paroxetine, amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Turkish Journal of Medical Science 1997;27(6):535‐9. CENTRAL

Jang 2010 {published data only}

Jang ZY, Li CD, Qiu L, Guo JH, He LN, Yue Y, et al. Combination of acupuncture, cupping and medicine for treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome: a multi‐central randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu [Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion] 2010;30(4):265‐9. CENTRAL

NCT00381199 {published data only}

Ware MA (Principle Investigator). Nabilone versus amitriptyline in improving quality of sleep in patients with fibromyalgia. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00381199?term=NCT00381199&rank=1 (accessed 30 March 2015)2007. [CTG: NCT00381199]CENTRAL

Dechartres 2013

Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ 2013;346:f2304. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2304]

Dworkin 2008

Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Journal of Pain 2008;9(2):105‐21. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005]

Hausser 2011

Häuser W, Petzke F, Üçeyler N, Sommer C. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of amitriptyline, duloxetine and milnacipran in fibromyalgia syndrome: a systematic review with meta‐analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011;50(3):532‐43. [DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq354]

Higgins 2003

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Jadad 1996a

Jadad AR, Carroll D, Moore RA, McQuay H. Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research. Pain 1996;66(2‐3):239‐46.

Jadad 1996b

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17(1):1‐12. [DOI: doi.org/10.1016/0197‐2456(95)00134‐4]

Kalso 2013

Kalso E, Aldington DJ, Moore RA. Drugs for neuropathic pain. BMJ 2013;347:f7339. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f7339]

Kim 2015

Kim SC, Landon JE, Lee YC. Patterns of health care utilization related to initiation of amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin or pregabalin in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Research and Therapy 2015;17(1):18. [DOI: 10.1186/s13075‐015‐0530‐8]

Kjaergard 2001

Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta‐analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):982‐9.

Koroschetz 2011

Koroschetz J, Rehm SE, Gockel U, Brosz M, Freynhagen R, Tölle TR, et al. Fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain ‐ differences and similarities. A comparison of 3057 patients with diabetic painful neuropathy and fibromyalgia. BMC Neurology 2011;11:55. [DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2377‐11‐55]

L'Abbé 1987

L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta‐analysis in clinical research. Annals of Internal Medicine 1987;107:224‐33.

Lunn 2014

Lunn MP, Hughes RA, Wiffen PJ. Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy, chronic pain or fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007115.pub3]

McQuay 1998

McQuay H, Moore R. An evidence‐based resource for pain relief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. [ISBN: 0‐19‐263048‐2]

Moore 1998

Moore RA, Gavaghan D, Tramèr MR, Collins SL, McQuay HJ. Size is everything ‐ large amounts of information are needed to overcome random effects in estimating direction and magnitude of treatment effects. Pain 1998;78(3):209‐16. [DOI: 10.1016/S0304‐3959(98)00140‐7]

Moore 2008

Moore RA, Barden J, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Managing potential publication bias. In: McQuay HJ, Kalso E, Moore RA editor(s). Systematic Reviews in Pain Research: Methodology Refined. Seattle: IASP Press, 2008:15‐24. [ISBN: 978–0–931092–69–5]

Moore 2009

Moore RA, Straube S, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007076]

Moore 2010a

Moore RA, Eccleston C, Derry S, Wiffen P, Bell RF, Straube S, et al. ACTINPAIN Writing Group of the IASP Special Interest Group on Systematic Reviews in Pain Relief, Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Systematic Review Group Editors. "Evidence" in chronic pain ‐ establishing best practice in the reporting of systematic reviews. Pain 2010;150(3):386‐9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.05.011]

Moore 2010b

Moore RA, Moore OA, Derry S, Peloso PM, Gammaitoni AR, Wang H. Responder analysis for pain relief and numbers needed to treat in a meta‐analysis of etoricoxib osteoarthritis trials: bridging a gap between clinical trials and clinical practice. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2010;69(2):374‐9. [DOI: 10.1136/ard.2009.107805]

Moore 2010c

Moore RA, Straube S, Paine J, Phillips CJ, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Fibromyalgia: moderate and substantial pain intensity reduction predicts improvement in other outcomes and substantial quality of life gain. Pain 2010;149(2):360‐4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.02.039]

Moore 2010d

Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Straube S, Aldington D, Wiffen P, et al. Clinical effectiveness: an approach to clinical trial design more relevant to clinical practice, acknowledging the importance of individual differences. Pain 2010;149(2):173‐6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.007]

Moore 2011a

Moore RA, Straube S, Paine J, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Minimum efficacy criteria for comparisons between treatments using individual patient meta‐analysis of acute pain trials: examples of etoricoxib, paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen/paracetamol combinations after third molar extraction. Pain 2011;152(5):982‐9. [DOI: doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.030]

Moore 2011b

Moore RA, Mhuircheartaigh RJ, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Mean analgesic consumption is inappropriate for testing analgesic efficacy in post‐operative pain: analysis and alternative suggestion. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2011;28(6):427‐32. [DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328343c569]

Moore 2012b

Moore RA, Straube S, Eccleston C, Derry S, Aldington D, Wiffen P, et al. Estimate at your peril: imputation methods for patient withdrawal can bias efficacy outcomes in chronic pain trials using responder analyses. Pain 2012;153(2):265‐8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.10.00]

Moore 2013a

Moore RA, Straube S, Aldington D. Pain measures and cut‐offs ‐ 'no worse than mild pain' as a simple, universal outcome. Anaesthesia 2013;68(4):400‐12. [DOI: 10.1111/anae.12148]

Moore 2013b

Moore A, Derry S, Eccleston C, Kalso E. Expect analgesic failure; pursue analgesic success. BMJ 2013;346:f2690. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f2690]

Moore 2014a

Moore RA, Derry S, Taylor RS, Straube S, Phillips CJ. The costs and consequences of adequately managed chronic non‐cancer pain and chronic neuropathic pain. Pain Practice 2014;14(1):79‐94.

Moore 2014b

Moore RA, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Toelle T, Rice AS. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007938.pub3]

Moore 2014c

Moore RA, Cai N, Skljarevski V, Tölle TR. Duloxetine use in chronic painful conditions ‐ individual patient data responder analysis. European Journal of Pain 2014;18(1):67‐75. [DOI: 10.1002/j.1532‐2149.2013.00341.x]

Moore 2015

Moore RA, Derry S, Aldington D, Cole P, Wiffen PJ. Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008242.pub3]

Nishishinya 2008

Nishishinya B, Urrútia G, Walitt B, Rodriguez A, Bonfill X, Alegre C, et al. Amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a systematic review of its efficacy. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47(12):1741‐6. [DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken317]

Nuesch 2010

Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG, et al. Small study effects in meta‐analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ 2010;341:c3515. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c3515]

Nüesch 2010

Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG, et al. Small study effects in meta‐analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ 2010;341:c3515. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c3515]

Onghena 1992

Onghena P, Van Houdenhove B. Antidepressant‐induced analgesia in chronic non‐malignant pain: a meta‐analysis of 39 placebo‐controlled studies. Pain 1992;49:205‐20.

PaPaS 2012

PaPaS author and referee guidance. http://papas.cochrane.org/papas‐documents (accessed 9 March 2015).

PCA 2014

Anonymous. Prescription Cost Analysis, England 2013. Available at: hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13887/pres‐cost‐anal‐eng‐2013‐rep.pdf (Accessed 9 March 2015). Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2014:100‐1. [ISBN: 978‐1‐78386‐089‐0]

Queiroz 2013

Queiroz LP. Worldwide epidemiology of fibromyalgia. Current Pain and Headache Reports 2013;17(8):356. [DOI: 10.1007/s11916‐013‐0356‐5]

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Schünemann 2011

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: 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.

Straube 2010

Straube S, Derry S, Moore RA, Paine J, McQuay HJ. Pregabalin in fibromyalgia‐‐responder analysis from individual patient data. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2010;11:150. [DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2474‐11‐150]

Straube 2011

Straube S, Moore RA, Paine J, Derry S, Phillips CJ, Hallier E, et al. Interference with work in fibromyalgia: effect of treatment with pregabalin and relation to pain response. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2011;12:125. [DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2474‐12‐125]

Sultan 2008

Sultan A, Gaskell H, Derry S, Moore RA. Duloxetine for painful diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia pain: systematic review of randomised trials. BMC Neurology 2008;8:29. [DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2377‐8‐29]

Vos 2012

Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2163‐96. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140‐6736(12)61729‐2]

Wiffen 2013

Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Moore RA, Aldington D, Cole P, Rice ASC, et al. Antiepileptic drugs for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia ‐ an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010567.pub2]

Wolfe 1990

Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, Bennett RM, Bombardier C, Goldenberg DL, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1990;33:160‐72.

Wolfe 2010

Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, Goldenberg DL, Katz RS, Mease P, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia and measurement of symptom severity. Arthritis Care and Research 2010;62(5):600‐10. [DOI: 10.1002/acr.20140]

Wolfe 2013

Wolfe F, Brähler E, Hinz A, Häuser W. Fibromyalgia prevalence, somatic symptom reporting, and the dimensionality of polysymptomatic distress: results from a survey of the general population. Arthritis Care and Research 2013;645(5):777‐85. [DOI: 10.1002/acr.21931]

Wolfe 2014

Wolfe F, Walitt BT, Häuser W. What is fibromyalgia, how is it diagnosed and what does it really mean?. Arthritis Care and Research 2014;66(7):969‐71. [DOI: 10.1002/acr.22207]

References to other published versions of this review

McQuay 1996

McQuay HJ, Tramer M, Nye BA, Carroll D, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA. A systematic review of antidepressants in neuropathic pain. Pain 1996;68:217‐27.

Moore 2012a

Moore RA, Derry S, Aldington D, Cole P, Wiffen PJ. Amitriptyline for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008242.pub2]

Saarto 2007

Saarto T, Wiffen PJ. Antidepressants for neuropathic pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005454.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Braz 2013

Methods

R, DB, AC, PC, parallel groups, duration 12 weeks

Medication taken once daily at 6 pm

Assessment at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 weeks

Participants

Inclusion: women with fibromyalgia (ACR 1990), age 21 to 60 years, normal laboratory tests

Exclusion: untreated inflammatory or endocrine disease; neurological, renal, infectious or bone disease; glaucoma, urinary retention, cardiovascular abnormalities; use of tricyclics within 3 months, any contraindication to study medication

N = 38, mean age 43 years, all F

Mean duration of symptoms > 33 months (least in placebo group, mean baseline pain 9/10 (5.7 to 9.6)

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg daily, n = 13

Panax ginseng extract (100 mg daily, 27% of ginsenosides), n = 12

Placebo, n = 13

Analgesics, opioids, anti‐inflammatory drugs all stopped for ≥ 3 weeks before start of study

Outcomes

Mean pain intensity

AE withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1, DB2, W1. Total = 4/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of generation of random sequence not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"identical form as capsules .... in sealed black bottles"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"identical form as capsules .... in sealed black bottles"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Results for completers only

Size

High risk

< 50 participants per treatment arm

Carette 1986

Methods

Multicentre, R, DB, PC, parallel groups, duration 9 weeks

Medication taken as single dose at bedtime. Initial daily dose of amitriptyline 10 mg, increased to 25 mg after 1 week, and to 50 mg after 4 weeks. Dose reduction allowed if not tolerated

Pain, sleep, overall change in disease assessed at baseline, week 5 and week 9

Participants

Inclusion: primary fibrositis (Smythe's criteria)

Exclusion: evidence of traumatic, neurologic, muscular, infectious, osseous, endocrine, or other rheumatic conditions. History of glaucoma, urinary retention, cardiovascular abnormalities. Use of amitriptyline within previous year

N = 70 enrolled, 57 completed, mean age 41 years, M 5/F 54

Mean duration of symptoms ˜85 months (significantly longer in placebo group), mean baseline pain ˜6/10

Interventions

Amitriptyline 50 mg/day, n = 27

Placebo, n = 32

All NSAIDs, antidepressants and hypnotic medication stopped ≥ 3 weeks before start of study

Paracetamol permitted throughout study

Outcomes

Patient global impression of change

Mean pain intensity

Adverse events

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1, DB2, W1. Total = 4/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described ‐ stated to be "randomised"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Capsules "were identical"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Capsules "were identical"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Completer analysis

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants/treatment arm

Carette 1994

Methods

Multicentre, R, DB (DD), PC and AC, parallel groups, treatment period 24 weeks

Amitriptyline taken as single dose at bedtime; initial daily dose 10 mg, increased to 25 mg after 1 week, and to 50 mg after 12 weeks. Cyclobenzaprine initial daily dose 10 mg at bedtime, increased to 20 mg at bedtime after 1 week, and to 10 mg in the morning +20 mg at bedtime after 12 weeks. Dose reduction permitted if not tolerated

Pain, fatigue, sleep, fibromyalgia symptoms assessed at baseline, and each month

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (ACR 1990), age ≥ 18 years, ≥ 4/10 for pain and/or global assessment of fibromyalgia symptoms

Exclusion: evidence of inflammatory rheumatic disease, untreated endocrine, neurologic, infectious, or osseous disorder. Glaucoma, urinary retention, cardiovascular abnormalities. Previous treatment with study drugs

N = 208, mean age 45 years, M 13/F 195

Median duration of symptoms 5 years, baseline pain ≥ 66/100

Interventions

Amitriptyline 50 mg/day, n = 84

Cyclobenzaprine 30 mg/day, n = 82

Placebo, n = 42

All NSAIDs, hypnotics, and antidepressants discontinued ≥ 3 weeks before start of study

Paracetamol permitted throughout study

Outcomes

Responder (at least 4/6 from ≥ 50% improvement in pain, sleep, fatigue, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, and increase of 1 kg in total myalgic score)

Adverse events

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2, DB2, W1. Total = 5/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"generated using a table of random numbers .... assigned in blocks of 5"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐dummy method described. ''Either amitriptyline 25mg or an identical appearing inert cyclobenzaprine placebo or active cyclobenzaprine and inert amitriptyline placebo"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐dummy method described

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Responder analysis, but unclear whether withdrawal = non responder or LOCF

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants in placebo treatment arm

Carette 1995

Methods

Single centre, R, DB, PC, cross‐over study. 2 x 8‐week treatment periods with no washout.

Medication taken as single dose, 1 hour before bedtime

Pain, fibromyalgia, sleep, and fatigue assessed at baseline and end of each treatment period

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (ACR), age ≥ 18 years, baseline pain and/or global assessment of fibromyalgia ≥ 4/10

Excluded: evidence of neurologic, muscular, infectious, endocrine, osseous, or other rheumatological diseases, history of glaucoma, urinary retention, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnoea

N = 22, mean age 44 years, M 1/F 21

Mean (SD) duration of fibromyalgia 83 (± 75) months, mean baseline pain 7/10

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg/d (reduced to 10 mg/day if not tolerated), n = 22

Placebo, n = 20

Washout before start of study: 2 weeks for NSAIDs and hypnotics, minimum 4 weeks for antidepressants

Paracetamol permitted throughout study

Outcomes

Responder (at least 4/6 from ≥ 50% improvement in pain, sleep, fatigue, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, and increase of 1 kg in total myalgic score)

Mean pain intensity

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2, DB2, W1. Total = 5/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"generated using a table of random numbers"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"identically appearing placebo tablet"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"identically appearing placebo tablet"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

All participants accounted for in responder analysis. Unclear how missing data were handled for mean data

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants/treatment arm

de Zanette 2014

Methods

R, DB (DD), AC, parallel groups, duration 6 weeks

Medication taken as single dose at bedtime

Assessment at baseline and end of treatment

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (ACR), refractory to current treatment and PI ≥ 50/100

Exclusion: inflammatory rheumatic disease or other painful conditions that might confound assessment; history of substance abuse, neurologic or oncologic disease, ischaemic heart disease, kidney or hepatic insufficiency

N = 63, mean age 48 years, mean baseline pain 66/100

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg daily, n = 21

Melatonin 10 mg daily, n = 21

Amitriptyline 25 mg + melatonin 10 mg daily, n = 21

Current analgesics continued unchanged (paracetamol, ibuprofen, codeine, tramadol)

Rescue medication: paracetamol (maximum 4 x 750 mg daily) and ibuprofen (maximum 4 x 20 mg daily)

Outcomes

Pain intensity

Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire

Use of additional analgesics in final week

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1, DB2, W1. Total = 5/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of sequence generation not described

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Before the recruitment phase, envelopes containing the protocol materials were prepared. Each envelope was sealed and numbered sequentially" "Two investigators who were not involved in patient evaluations were responsible for the blinding and randomization procedures"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

"Placebo and active treatment [capsules] had the same size, color, smell and flavor"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

"Placebo and active treatment [capsules] had the same size, color, smell and flavor"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Imputation method for mean data unclear. No dichotomous data

Size

High risk

< 50 participants per treatment arm

Ginsberg 1996

Methods

Single centre, R, DB, PC, parallel groups, 8‐week treatment period

Medication taken as single dose, 1 hour before bedtime

Pain, fibromyalgia, sleep, and fatigue assessed at baseline and end of weeks 4 and 8

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (ACR)

Exclusion: glaucoma, urinary retention, cardiovascular problems, epilepsy, treatment with amitriptyline within 6 months

N = 46, mean age 46 years, M 8/F 38

Duration of fibromyalgia 0.3 to 20 years, mean baseline pain 7/10

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg/day n = 24 (sustained‐release formulation)

Placebo, n = 22

Not permitted during study: vitamin D/magnesium, muscle relaxants, analgesics/anti‐inflammatory except paracetamol, antidepressants, hypnotics, tranquillisers

Paracetamol permitted throughout study for severe pain

Outcomes

Responder (at least 3/4 from ≥ 50% improvement in patient global, physician global, pain, and ≥ 25% reduction in tender point score)

Mean pain intensity

Adverse events

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1, DB2, W1. Total = 4/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported ‐ stated as "randomly assigned"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Placebo was "identical to the amitriptyline capsules"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Placebo was "identical to the amitriptyline capsules"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

All participants accounted for in responder analysis. Unclear how missing data were handled for mean data

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants/treatment arm

Goldenberg 1986

Methods

R, DB (DD), AC, and PC, parallel groups, 6‐week treatment period

Amitriptyline taken as single dose at night, naproxen as divided dose morning and night ‐ implication is DD

Assessments at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 weeks for patient global fibromyalgia symptoms, pain or stiffness, fatigue, sleep

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (not ACR, but probably equivalent), baseline pain and/or fibromyalgia symptoms ≥ 4/10

Excluded: peptic ulcer disease or cardiac arrhythmias

N = 62, mean age 44 years, M 3/F 59

Duration of chronic pain 0.3 to 20 years

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg/day, n = assume 16

Naproxen 2 x 500 mg/day, n = assume 15

Amitriptyline 25 mg + naproxen 2 x 500 mg/day, n = assume 15

Placebo, n = assume 16

All analgesics, anti‐inflammatory medications, antidepressants, sleeping medication and CNS‐active medications stopped ≥ 72 h before start

Paracetamol (2 x 650 mg every 4 hours) allowed for severe pain throughout study

Outcomes

Mean pain intensity

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R1, DB1, W1. Total = 3/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported ‐ stated to be "randomly assigned"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Stated to be 'blinded'. Describes double‐dummy design but not stated to be matching

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Stated to be 'blinded'. Describes double‐dummy design but not stated to be matching

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported. No responder data

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants/treatment arm

Goldenberg 1996

Methods

Single centre, R, DB, PC, and AC, cross‐over study. 4 x 6‐week treatment periods with 2‐week washout between periods.

Amitriptyline taken as single dose at bedtime, fluoxetine as single dose in the morning

Pain, fibromyalgia, sleep, and fatigue assessed at baseline and end of each treatment period

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (ACR), age 18 to 60 years, baseline pain ≥ 30/100, baseline HRS‐D ≤ 18

Exclusion: current or history of systemic disease

N = 31, mean age 43 years, M 3/F 28

Duration of symptoms 24 to 240 months, mean baseline pain 67/100

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg/day, n = 21

Fluoxetine 20 mg/day, n = 22

Amitriptyline 25 mg + fluoxetine 20 mg, n = 19

Placebo, n = 19

All CNS‐active medications, NSAIDs, analgesics other than paracetamol stopped ≥ 7 days before start

Paracetamol permitted

Outcomes

Mean pain intensity

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2, DB2, W1. Total = 5/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"order of treatment was generated from a table of random numbers"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"All tablets were identical in appearance"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"All tablets were identical in appearance"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

LOCF implied

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants/treatment arm

Hannonen 1998

Methods

Multicentre, R, DB, PC, and AC, parallel groups, 12‐week treatment period

Amitriptyline taken 2 h before bedtime, moclobemide taken as divided dose in morning and afternoon. Initial daily dose amitriptyline 12.5 mg, increased to 25 mg at 2 weeks, and again to 37.5 mg at 6 weeks if response unsatisfactory. Initial daily dose of moclobemide 300 mg, increased to 450 mg at 2 weeks, and again to 600 mg if response unsatisfactory

Pain, general health (fibromyalgia), sleep, and fatigue assessed at baseline and 2, 6, 12 weeks

Participants

Inclusion: fibromyalgia (ACR 1990), female, age 18 to 65 years, score ≥ 4/10 for at least three of pain, general health (fibromyalgia), sleep, and fatigue

Exclusion: severe cardiovascular, pulmonary, hepatic, haematological or renal disease

N = 130, mean age 49 years, all F

Mean duration of symptoms 8 years, baseline pain ≥ 5.7/10

Interventions

Amitriptyline 25 mg/day, n = 42

Moclobemide 450 mg/day, n = 43

Placebo, n = 45

All CNS‐active medications, NSAIDs, and analgesics (other than paracetamol) discontinued before start of study

Paracetamol permitted throughout study

Outcomes

Mean pain intensity, global health

Adverse events

Withdrawals

Notes

Oxford Quality Score: R2, DB2, W1. Total = 5/5

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

''The randomisation was organised centrally with sequentially numbered envelopes consisting of blocks of six''. Probably low risk

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Does not state that envelopes were opaque

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"placebo capsules were identical to the active drugs". Implies double‐dummy method

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"placebo capsules were identical to the active drugs". Implies double‐dummy method

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Imputation method not reported. No obvious imbalance for discontinuations between groups, but > 25% withdrawals in all groups

Size

High risk

Fewer than 50 participants/treatment arm

AC: active control; ACR: American College of Rheumatology; BOCF: baseline observation carried forward; CNS: central nervous system; DB: double‐blinding; DD: double dummy; ECG: electrocardiogram; HRS‐D: Hamilton Rating Scale ‐ Depression; ITT: intention‐to‐treat; LOCF: last observation carried forward; NSAIDs: non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; PC: placebo controlled; PDN: painful diabetic neuropathy; PHN: postherpetic neuralgia; R: randomisation; W: withdrawals

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Fors 2002

No initial pain requirement for inclusion, no baseline pain reported

Hampf 1989

Fewer than 10 participants in amitriptyline treatment arm

Heymann 2001

No initial pain requirement for inclusion, no baseline pain reported

Isomeri 1993

Study not blinded

Jaeschke 1991

Fewer than 10 participants/treatment group (N of 1 trials)

Kempenaers 1994

Fewer than 10 participants/treatment group

McQuay 1992

Predominantly neuropathic or musculoskeletal pain

McQuay 1993

Neuropathic pain

Pilowsky 1982

Unclear diagnosis of pain condition ("a wide range of intractable pain problems ..... without readily treatable somatic pathology")

Pilowsky 1990

Study not double‐blind

Scudds 1989

No initial pain requirement for inclusion, no baseline pain reported

Zitman 1990

Unclear diagnosis of pain condition ("somatoform pain disorder"). Included some participants with < moderate baseline pain intensity

Zitman 1991

Unclear diagnosis of pain condition ("chronic pain .....no selection on organic or psychogenic aetiology"). Included some participants with < moderate baseline pain intensity

Özerbil 2006

No pain evaluation, duration of each treatment period only 2 weeks

Ҫapaci 2002

Study not convincingly double‐blind, no patient evaluation of pain

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Ataoğlu 1997

Methods

Randomised, 6‐week trial

Participants

Fibromyalgia

N = 68

Interventions

Amitriptyline

Paroxetine

Outcomes

Notes

Turkish (with English abstract) ‐ awaiting translation

Jang 2010

Methods

Randomised, controlled trial, 4 weeks

Participants

Fibromyalgia syndrome

N = 186

Interventions

Oral amitriptyline (Western medicine), once daily

Acupuncture combined with cupping and Western medicine

Acupuncture combined with cupping

Outcomes

Notes

Chinese (with English abstract) ‐ awaiting translation

NCT00381199

Methods

Randomised, double‐blind, cross‐over study. Duration 43 days (possibly 2 x 3 weeks)

Assessment at 1, 15, 29, 43 days

Participants

Fibromyalgia (ACR 1990) with self‐reported sleep disturbance. Age 18 years or over

N = 32

Interventions

Amitriptyline 10 to 25 mg daily

Nabilone 0.5 to 1 mg daily

Outcomes

Pain intensity (VAS)

Pain quality (McGill Pain Questionnaire)

Quality of Life (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire)

Mood (Profile of Mood States)

Notes

Reported complete in May 2007

ACR: American College of Rheumatology; N: number of participants; VAS: visual analogue scale

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Third‐tier efficacy Show forest plot

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.88 [1.69, 4.91]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 1 Third‐tier efficacy.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 1 Third‐tier efficacy.

1.1 Fibromyalgia

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.88 [1.69, 4.91]

2 At least 1 adverse event Show forest plot

4

318

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [1.29, 1.84]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 2 At least 1 adverse event.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 2 At least 1 adverse event.

3 All‐cause withdrawal Show forest plot

7

418

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.53, 1.11]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 3 All‐cause withdrawal.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 3 All‐cause withdrawal.

4 Adverse event withdrawal Show forest plot

4

298

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.49, 2.16]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 4 Adverse event withdrawal.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 4 Adverse event withdrawal.

5 Lack of efficacy withdrawal Show forest plot

3

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.19, 0.95]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 5 Lack of efficacy withdrawal.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 5 Lack of efficacy withdrawal.

Flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, outcome: 1.1 Third‐tier efficacy.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, outcome: 1.1 Third‐tier efficacy.

Third‐tier evidence: substantial pain relief
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Third‐tier evidence: substantial pain relief

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 1 Third‐tier efficacy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 1 Third‐tier efficacy.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 2 At least 1 adverse event.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 2 At least 1 adverse event.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 3 All‐cause withdrawal.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 3 All‐cause withdrawal.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 4 Adverse event withdrawal.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 4 Adverse event withdrawal.

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 5 Lack of efficacy withdrawal.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Amitriptyline versus placebo, Outcome 5 Lack of efficacy withdrawal.

Amitriptyline compared with placebo for fibromyalgia

Patient or population: adults with fibromyalgia

Settings: community

Intervention: amitriptyline 25 to 50 mg daily

Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Probable outcome with intervention

Probable outcome with placebo

NNT or NNH and/or relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

At least 50% reduction in pain or equivalent (substantial)

360 in 1000

110 in 1000

RR 2.9 (1.7 to 4.9)

NNT 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7)

4 studies, 275 participants

Very low

Small number of studies and participants

At least 30% reduction in pain or equivalent (moderate)

no data

Adverse event withdrawals

80 in 1000

90 in 1000

RR 1.03 (0.49 to 2.2)

NNTp not calculated

4 studies, 298 participants

Very low

Small number of studies and participants

Serious adverse events

none reported

Death

none reported

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Third‐tier efficacy Show forest plot

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.88 [1.69, 4.91]

1.1 Fibromyalgia

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.88 [1.69, 4.91]

2 At least 1 adverse event Show forest plot

4

318

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [1.29, 1.84]

3 All‐cause withdrawal Show forest plot

7

418

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.53, 1.11]

4 Adverse event withdrawal Show forest plot

4

298

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.49, 2.16]

5 Lack of efficacy withdrawal Show forest plot

3

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.19, 0.95]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Amitriptyline versus placebo