MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396933406 · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-05833-w

The safety and efficacy of escitalopram and sertraline in post-stroke depression: a randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4396933406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ning Yan, Shaohua Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaCentral South University
KeywordsEscitalopramHamdSertralineDepression (economics)Rating scaleHamilton Rating Scale for DepressionHamilton Anxiety Rating ScaleAdverse effectMedicineInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAnxietyPsychologyPsychiatryMajor depressive disorderCognitionAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of escitalopram and sertraline in post-stroke depression (PSD) patients, to provide more reliable therapeutics for cardiovascular and psychiatric clinical practice. Methods We recruited 60 patients (aged 40–89 years old) with an ICD-10 diagnosis of PSD, who were then randomly assigned to two groups and treated with flexible doses of escitalopram (10 to 20 mg/day, n = 30) or sertraline (50 to 200 mg/day, n = 30) for consecutive 8 weeks, respectively. The 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-24), the 14-item Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA-14), the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA), and the Activity of Daily Living scale (ADL) were used to assess patients before, during, and after treatment for depression, anxiety, adverse effects, cognitive function, and daily living activities. Repeated measures ANOVA, the Mann–Whitney U test, the chi-square test (χ 2 ), or Fisher’s exact test was employed to assess baseline demographics, response rate, adverse effects rate, and changes in other clinical variables. Results Significant reduction in HAMD-24 and HAMA-14 scores was evaluated at baseline, as well as 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 weeks of drug intervention ( p < 0.01). There was a significant group difference in post-treatment HAMD-24 scores ( p < 0.05), but no difference was observed in HAMA-14 scores ( p > 0.05). Further analysis showed a significant variance in the HAMD-24 scores between the two groups at the end of the first week ( p < 0.01). The incidence of adverse effects in both patient groups was mild, but there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups ( p < 0.05). The improvement in cognitive function and the recovery of daily living abilities were comparable between both groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusion Escitalopram and sertraline showed comparable efficacy for anxiety symptoms, cognitive function, and daily living abilities in PSD patients. In addition, escitalopram was more appropriate for alleviating depressive symptoms. To validate the conclusion, trials with a larger sample size are in demand in the future. The registration number is ChiCTR1800017373.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207