He 2005.

Methods	Parallel design. 3 groups: paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy, control. We are using paroxetine and control data in this review Analysis: according to treatment group
Participants	Location: China Setting: inpatient Stroke criteria: first ever stroke; ischaemic and haemorrhagic, timing: "acute", clinical diagnosis plus confirmation by imaging (though not clear whether a stroke lesion had to be present or not) Mood criteria: meets ICD‐10 organic depression and organic anxiety diagnostic criteria on psychiatric interview, HAMD score ≥ 17 and HAMA score ≥ 14 Treatment: 27 people, mean age 62.4 ± 6.1 years, 14 men Control: 27 people, mean age 63.2 ± 5.7 years, 16 men Exclusion: previous psychiatric disorder, antidepressants and "nerve block agents" in recent 3 months, severe cognitive impairment, aphasia, severe cardiac, hepatic and renal function impairment, allergy to paroxetine, severe suicidal behaviour
Interventions	Treatment: paroxetine 20 mg plus routine stroke treatment Control: routine stroke treatment Duration of treatment: 6 weeks Duration of follow‐up: end of treatment to study end: 0
Outcomes	SSS BI HAMD HAMA TESS Also reported GI upset and dizziness. They did not list any seizures in the list of AEs, so we are assuming no seizures in either groups Unclear how side effects were collected
Funding source	Funded by a local scientific academic fund
Notes	The authors mentioned using the SDS and the SAS for evaluation, but they did not report the results of SDS and SAS
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No placebo
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No dropouts, analysed according to treatment group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No protocol, the authors mentioned using the SDS and the SAS for evaluation but they did not report the results
Other bias	Low risk	Balanced baseline