ArticleBMJ open2026
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments in post-stroke depression: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDepression is a common complication of stroke that adversely affects functional recovery. Although a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are used in clinical practice, evidence regarding their comparative efficacy and acceptability remains inconclusive. Therefore, we will conduct the first systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank available interventions for post-stroke depression (PSD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we will search PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 1 September 2025 to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We will include studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, or any control conditions as monotherapy for the treatment of patients with PSD. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. The primary outcomes will be the change score on depression scales from baseline to the end of treatment (efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). Secondary outcomes will include quality of life, cognitive and neurological function scores, anxiety and sleep quality. Two reviewers will independently screen and select eligible studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of bias in all RCTs included in the NMA will be assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2). A frequentist NMA will be conducted in Stata and R. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess robustness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This NMA does not need ethical approval, as the data used here are based on aggregated data in the public domain. Findings from the analysis will provide an overview and information on the relative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments in PSD. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251136670.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.