ReviewStroke2025
Neurostimulant Use for Rehabilitation and Recovery After Stroke: A Narrative Literature Review.
Review in Stroke, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- NMDA Receptor Mediated Mechanisms in the Post-Stroke Brain: From Physiology to Pathology.Biomolecules · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStroke often results in significant impairments across various domains, including movement, language, cognition, and mood. Neurostimulants have been proposed as potential therapeutic interventions to enhance recovery in these areas.
methodsThis narrative literature review examines clinical trials investigating the efficacy of neurostimulants in poststroke recovery. It evaluates outcomes related to aphasia, motor deficits, cognition, fatigue, and depression.
resultsThe qualitative analysis included 34 trials testing the following neurostimulants: methylphenidate (n=6), amphetamines (n=8), memantine (n=2), modafinil (n=2), levodopa (n=14), amantadine (n=1), bromocriptine (n=3), and ropinirole (n=1). Of the 34 studies, 31 were randomized, placebo-controlled (double-blind, n=27; single-blind, n=2; unblinded n=2), 2 were randomized and not placebo-controlled, and 1 was not randomized. Study design was either multiarm (n=23), crossover (n=10), or used subjects as their own control (n=1). Mean sample size was 49.4 (5-593).
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that memantine may be effective for aphasia, although few phase III trials exist, whereas bromocriptine and amphetamines lack sufficient evidence for long-term recovery of aphasia. Levodopa may improve motor aphasias but has not shown long-term benefits for motor recovery. Similarly, ropinirole has not been shown to improve poststroke motor outcomes. Methylphenidate has limited efficacy for cognitive improvement but may enhance poststroke functionality and mood. Modafinil may help with poststroke fatigue. In conclusion, there are promising results of positive effects of neurostimulants with few side effects, though studies are limited by heterogeneous designs and small sample sizes. Neurostimulant efficacy must be assessed in conjunction with specific rehabilitation modalities as part of larger, well-designed studies to best understand their effects on impairment.
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.