Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 19;2019(3):CD003690. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003690.pub4

Comparison 1. Pharmaceutical interventions versus placebo.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Emotionalism 4   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 50% reduction in emotionalism 1 19 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 16.5 [1.07, 253.40]
1.2 Improved score on Lability scale (House 1989 measure) 1 28 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.44 [0.95, 2.19]
1.3 Clinician interview‐based impression of change ‐ improved score 1 28 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.44 [0.95, 2.19]
1.4 Diminished tearfulness 3 164 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.18 [1.29, 3.71]
2 Emotionalism: mean scores at end of treatment 1   Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 Pathological Laughter and Crying Scale (high score = worse emotionalism) 1 28 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) ‐8.4 [‐11.56, ‐5.24]
3 Depression: 1. Mean scores at end of treatment 2 72 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐0.82 [‐2.14, 0.51]
3.1 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (high score = more depressed) 1 28 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐1.53 [‐2.39, ‐0.67]
3.2 Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (high score = more depressed) 1 44 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐0.18 [‐0.77, 0.42]
4 Depression: 2. Average change in scores between baseline and end of treatment 2 72 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐0.05 [‐0.72, 0.62]
4.1 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (high score = more depressed) 1 28 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐0.43 [‐1.18, 0.32]
4.2 Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (high score = more depressed) 1 44 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.26 [‐0.34, 0.85]
5 Cognitive functioning: mean scores at end of treatment 1   Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Subtotals only
5.1 Mini‐mental state examination (low score = cognitive impairment) 1 28 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) ‐0.30 [‐3.27, 2.67]
6 Activities of daily living: 1. Mean scores at end of treatment 1   Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) Subtotals only
6.1 Johns Hopkins Functioning Inventory (high score = worse function) 1 28 Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI) ‐1.40 [‐5.22, 2.42]
7 Adverse events: 1. Death 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
7.1 At end of treatment 6 172 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.59 [0.08, 4.50]
8 Adverse events: 2. All 2   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
8.1 Central nervous system events (e.g. confusion, sedation, tremor) 2 56 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.0 [0.11, 9.08]
8.2 Gastrointestinal effects (e.g. constipation, diarrhoea) 1 28 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.33 [0.01, 7.55]
8.3 Other events not listed above (e.g. dysuria, eye discomfort) 1 28 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 5.0 [0.26, 95.61]
8.4 Recurrent stroke 1 28 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.0 [0.07, 14.45]
9 Adverse events: 3. Leaving the study early (including death) 5   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
9.1 All dropouts and withdrawals 5 216 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.17 [0.38, 3.58]