2014Journal of clinical and experimental medicineRequires access

The efficacy and safety clinical analysis of paroxetine on the 90 post-stroke depression patients

Miao Hai-fen

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of paroxetine on the post-stroke depression patients.Methods 90 cases with post-stroke depression were randomly divided into treatment group and control group,45 cases differently.The treatment group was treated with paroxetine and conventional cerebrovascular medicine.The control group was given conventional cerebrovascular medicine only.The efficacy and adverse events were assessed by HAMD,NIHSS,BI and TESS before and after treatment 1,4,8 weeks,respectively.Results Comparing the treatment group before and after,HAMD at week 4(F = 10.47,P = 0.019),at week 8(F = 56.64,P 0.001);NIHSS at week 4(F = 16.23,P = 0.037),at week 8(F = 24.52,P = 0.011).Barthel at week 4(F = 15.64,P = 0.032),at week 8(F = 27.12,P = 0.009).TESS was no significant difference on the rate of adverse events between the two groups(4.3 ± 1.7,4.2 ± 1.6,P 0.05).Conclusion Paroxetine was effective and safe antidepressant on the post-stroke depression patients.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of paroxetine on the post-stroke depression patients.Methods 90 cases with post-stroke depression were randomly divided into treatment group and control group,45 cases differently.The treatment group was treated with paroxetine and conventional cerebrovascular medicine.The control group was given conventional cerebrovascular medicine only.The efficacy and adverse events were assessed by HAMD,NIHSS,BI and TESS before and after treatment 1,4,8 weeks,respectively.Results Comparing the treatment group before and after,HAMD at week 4(F = 10.47,P = 0.019),at week 8(F = 56.64,P 0.001);NIHSS at week 4(F = 16.23,P = 0.037),at week 8(F = 24.52,P = 0.011).Barthel at week 4(F = 15.64,P = 0.032),at week 8(F = 27.12,P = 0.009).TESS was no significant difference on the rate of adverse events between the two groups(4.3 ± 1.7,4.2 ± 1.6,P 0.05).Conclusion Paroxetine was effective and safe antidepressant on the post-stroke depression patients.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of paroxetine on the post-stroke depression patients.Methods 90 cases with post-stroke depression were randomly divided into treatment group and control group,45 cases differently.The treatment group was treated with paroxetine and conventional cerebrovascular medicine.The control group was given conventional cerebrovascular medicine only.The efficacy and adverse events were assessed by HAMD,NIHSS,BI and TESS before and after treatment 1,4,8 weeks,respectively.Results Comparing the treatment group before and after,HAMD at week 4(F = 10.47,P = 0.019),at week 8(F = 56.64,P 0.001);NIHSS at week 4(F = 16.23,P = 0.037),at week 8(F = 24.52,P = 0.011).Barthel at week 4(F = 15.64,P = 0.032),at week 8(F = 27.12,P = 0.009).TESS was no significant difference on the rate of adverse events between the two groups(4.3 ± 1.7,4.2 ± 1.6,P 0.05).Conclusion Paroxetine was effective and safe antidepressant on the post-stroke depression patients.

Key concepts: Paroxetine, Medicine, Hamd, Post-stroke depression, Depression (economics), Clinical efficacy, Hamilton depression scale, Antidepressant

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The efficacy and safety clinical analysis of paroxetine on the 90 post-stroke depression patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens