ArticleBMJ open2017
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Optimizing Identification and Management of Depression in Neurological Diseases: A Narrative Review and Expert Perspective.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Article
- Research Advances in Multimodal Framework-Based Identification and Therapeutic Management of Post-Stroke Depression via the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of multifaceted interventions including motivational interviewing and home-based rehabilitation program for improving mental and physical health in stroke patients: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Article
- Association between sleep-related phenotypes and gut microbiota: a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- The Neuroimaging Role of Modified Electroconvulsive Therapy in the Major Depressive Disorder: Effectiveness in First-Episode Antipsychotic-Naive Major Depressive Disorder Patients.Depression and anxiety · 2024Article
- Pathophysiology and Current Drug Treatments for Post-Stroke Depression: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Preventive Approaches for Post-Stroke Depression: Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2021Review
- Sertraline for Functional Recovery After Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Observational Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Oxidative Stress at the Crossroads of Aging, Stroke and Depression.Aging and disease · 2020Review
- Treatment of Post-Stroke Depression.Current treatment options in neurology · 2019Review
- Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Stroke.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2018Review
- Observational
- Predictors of Remission of Early-Onset Poststroke Depression and the Interaction Between Depression and Cognition During Follow-Up.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to create a rank order of the comparative efficacy and acceptability (risk of all-cause discontinuation) of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression (PSD) by integrating direct and indirect evidence.
designMultiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
participantsPatients with depression following stroke.
interventions10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the overall efficacy, defined as the mean change of the total depression score. The secondary outcome was the acceptability, defined as risk of all-cause discontinuation. These estimates as standardised mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs.
resultsWe identified 12 suitable trials, with data from 707 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo apart from sertraline, nefiracetam and fluoxetine. Most of the comparisons for acceptability revealed no significant differences except that paroxetine had significantly lower all-cause discontinuation than doxepin, citalopram and fluoxetine. Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for efficacy varied from -6.54 for the best drug (reboxetine) to 0.51 for the worst drug (nefiracetam). ORs compared with placebo for acceptability ranged from 0.09 for the best drug (paroxetine) to 3.42 for the worst drug (citalopram). For the efficacy rank, reboxetine, paroxetine, doxepin and duloxetine were among the most efficacious treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 100%, 85.7%, 83.2%, 62.4%, respectively. With respect to the acceptability rank, paroxetine, placebo, sertraline and nortriptyline were among the most acceptable treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 92.4%, 63.5%, 57.3%, 56.3%.
conclusionAfter weighing the efficacy and acceptability, we conclude that paroxetine might be the best choice when starting acute treatment for PSD, and fluoxetine might be the worst choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.