Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34780067›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

Lynn A Legg, Ann-Sofie Rudberg, Xing Hua, Simiao Wu, Maree L Hackett, Russel Tilney, Linnea Lindgren, Mansur A Kutlubaev, Cheng-Fang Hsieh, Amanda J Barugh and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Use of vortioxetine in different neurological fields: a systematic review and future perspectives.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Preventing depression in aphasia: A cluster randomized control trial of the Aphasia Action Success Knowledge (ASK) program.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Trial
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Immunologic Underpinnings of Post-Stroke Depression.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Lynn A LeggNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, Paisley, UK.
Ann-Sofie RudbergDivision of Neurology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Xing HuaDepartment of Neurology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Simiao WuDepartment of Neurology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Maree L HackettProfessor, Program Head, Mental Health, The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Russel TilneyDepartment of Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, Malta.
Linnea LindgrenDepartment of Neuroscience, Neurology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mansur A KutlubaevDepartment of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Medical Genetics, Bashkir State Medical University, Ufa, Russian Federation.
Cheng-Fang HsiehDivision of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Neurology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Amanda J BarughDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Graeme J HankeyMedical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences,, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Erik LundströmDepartment of Neuroscience, Neurology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Martin DennisCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Gillian E MeadCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post-stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019.

objectivesTo determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta-analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre-specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN

resultsWe identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow-up. Thirty-eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD -0.0; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high-quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high-quality evidence) at the end of treatment. In the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high-quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high-quality evidence). Cognition was slightly better in the control group (MD -1.22, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.33; low-quality evidence). SSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, -0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high-quality evidence). One study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants). There was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence). SSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD -0.06; 95% CI -1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate-quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high-quality evidence). When all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes at end of follow-up. Several small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is high-quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk.

Indexed as

Selective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsStrokeAnxietyAnxiety DisordersFluoxetineHumansFluoxetineSelective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID34780067
PMCPMC8592088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.