Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 26;2019(11):CD009286. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009286.pub3

Wiart 2000.

Methods Purpose: to treat early depression
Parallel design
Analysis: ITT (last observation carried forward), withdrawn owing to AE (1 treatment), protocol violation (1 treatment)
Participants Location: France
Setting: unclear
Treatment: 16 people, mean ± SD age 66 ± 7 years, 65% men
Control: 15 people, mean ± SD age 66 ± 12 years, 40% men
Stroke criteria: ischaemic stroke and PICH, diagnosis by clinical signs and CT (100%); stroke on average 47 ± 22 days (treatment group) and 48 ± 20 days (control group)
Depression criteria: psychiatric interview (ICD‐10 criteria) and MADRS score > 19
Other entry criteria: all antidepressant or neuroleptic drugs stopped 10 days prior to enrolment
Comparability of treatment groups: balanced
Exclusion criteria: severe psychiatric problems which required hospitalisation, severe aphasia, previous stroke, severe cognitive impairment, chronic alcoholism, chronic associated handicapping pathology, contraindication to fluoxetine
Interventions Treatment: fluoxetine 20 mg daily
Control: matched placebo
Duration of treatment: 45 days
Duration of follow‐up (treatment end to study end): 0
Outcomes Depression: change in scores from baseline to end of treatment of MADRS, 50% reduction in MADRS score
Additional: FIMs
MMSE
Motricity Index
Leaving the study early
Death
AEs ("evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively". Complete blood count, liver test and renal function test were carried out at each assessment visit)
Funding source Lilly France Laboratory provided methodological and financial support
Notes Dates of recruitment not stated. Conflicts of interest not stated
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of randomisation not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Method not stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Quote: "Identical white capsules" given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Method of blinding not stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Used last observation carried forward
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Trial published on www.strokecentre.org/trials. The primary outcome was reported
Other bias Unclear risk Baseline balanced