SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.
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.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The influence of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on stroke outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Research hotspots and frontiers of acceptance and commitment therapy for mental disorders: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic-search-and-review of registered pharmacological therapies investigated to improve neuro-recovery after a stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Pharmacological, non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological interventions, and their combination, for treating depression after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of SSRIs in Improving Poststroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine on poststroke depression in animal models: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Early emotional interventions for post-stroke functional prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- The impact of levodopa on post-stroke depression: the ESTREL-depression-study.European stroke journal · 2026Trial
- Escitalopram promotes recovery from hand paresis in cortical sensori-motor stroke: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled longitudinal study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- A Pilot Study of Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Preventing Post-Stroke Depression.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Trial
- The safety and efficacy of escitalopram and sertraline in post-stroke depression: a randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2024Trial
- 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 · 2023Trial
- Pharmacological interventions for reducing the risk of cognitive decline and dementia after stroke/transient ischemic attack: A systematic review.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Review
- Neuroplasticity After Stroke: Clinical Evidence and Its Implication for Effective Rehabilitation Strategies.Brain & NeuroRehabilitation · 2026Review
- The Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Post-Stroke Depression.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Prevalence, Predictors, and Prognosis of Depression After Transient Ischemic Attack: A Population-Based Study.Stroke · 2026Article
- Traditional Chinese medicine interventions for post-stroke emotional disorders: a protocol for network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- The Immunologic Underpinnings of Post-Stroke Depression.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.