Creytens 1980.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel design Number of arms: 2 Experimental arm: piracetam (nootropic agent) Control arm: matched placebo
Participants	Geographical location: Belgium Setting: inpatient (women's hospital) Stroke criteria: all subtypes Method of stroke diagnosis: via clinical signs Time since stroke: not reported Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Total number randomised in this trial: 50 Number randomised to treatment group: 25 (0% men, mean age 73 years SD not reported) Number randomised to control group: 25 (0% men, mean age 69 years SD not reported) Total number included in final analysis: 42 Number included in treatment group for final analysis: unclear Number included in control group for final analysis: unclear
Interventions	Treatment: piracetam (nootropic agent), 6g IM daily for 7 days, 4.8 g (4 x 400 mg three times a day orally) daily for 30 days Control: matched placebo Treatment duration: treatment continued for 37 days Follow‐up: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Depression measured using the BOP scale (depressive behaviour sub scale) Secondary outcomes Leaving the study early Adverse events Death
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Two independent groups of patients suffering a CVA (acute stage) were randomized…." pp. 23 Comments: method of sequence generation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: method of allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "This study was double‐blind." pp. 23 Comments: no details of who was blinded was reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "This study was double‐blind." pp. 23 Comments: no details of who was blinded was reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comments: per protocol analysis presented only. 8/50 participants were not included in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: no trial protocol available to compare with the publication
Other bias	Unclear risk	‐