SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Effect of antidepressants on motor and functional recovery in stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite significant progress in acute stroke management, the burden of persistent motor impairments necessitates ongoing research into novel therapeutic strategies. Our study aims to study if antidepressants can effectively improve the motor function and functional independence in patients after stroke.
methodsThis meta-analysis encompassed Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult stroke patients and compared any antidepressant drug against placebo, and reporting motor outcomes. We excluded studies which reported only cognitive outcomes or single arm studies with no comparator. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science for records from inception up to August 2024. Outcomes data were pooled as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was considered for quality assessment of the included studies.
resultsThe preliminary search yielded 22 articles. A total of 11,396 patients were included, with a majority being elderly. Anti-depressants, primarily fluoxetine and citalopram, significantly improved Fugl Meyer Motor scale Scores (FMMS) at the endpoint (SMD = 0.79, 95%CI [0.056, 1.02], p-value < 0.00001) and change from baseline (SMD = 0.75, 95%CI [0.27, 1.24], p-value = 0.002), suggesting a substantial positive effect equivalent to a large effect size, potentially reflecting significant improvements in motor control and function. There wasn't a significant subgroup difference between fluoxetine, citalopram, and selegiline. Also, Barthel index (BI) scores endpoints were significantly improved by antidepressants (SMD = 0.54, 95%CI [0.12, 0.96], p-value = 0.01) and change from baseline (SMD = 0.46, 95%CI [0.02, 0.9], p-value = 0.04), indicating a moderate positive effect, likely representing noticeable gains in independence for activities of daily living. There was a significant difference in both BI endpoints score and change from baseline (P < 0.00001) between subgroups favoring escitalopram. However, anti-depressants did not improve modified Rankin Scale (mRS) Scores (SMD = 0.06, 95%CI [-0.01, 0.12], p-value = 0.08). There wasn't a significant subgroup difference between fluoxetine and citalopram (p-value = 0.17). Based on RoB2, 12 studies were rated as having an overall low risk of bias, four were rated as having some concerns, and six were assessed as high risk.
conclusionCertain antidepressants may enhance motor performance and independence in performing activities of daily living during post-stroke recovery among elderly patients. Fluoxetine was the most common antidepressant described in the literature with significant improvement in motor (FMMS) functional (BI) scales. However, substantial heterogeneity and potential study biases warrant cautious interpretation. Rigorous, large-scale RCTs are necessary to verify these findings and establish long-term safety profiles. They will also help define the optimal therapeutic strategies before routine clinical use is considered.
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.