Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single): Depression: < 50% reduction in scale scores at end of treatment (primary outcome)
It is very uncertain whether pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… changes depression: < 50% reduction in scale scores at end of treatment… compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single) Depression: < 50% reduction in scale scores at end of treatment (primary outcome) · people with depression after stroke It is very uncertain whether pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… changes depression: < 50% reduction in scale scores at end of treatment… compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (very low certainty). Pharmacological, non‐invasive brain stimulation and psychological interventions, and their combination, for… (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.95 [0.69, 1.3] | 3 studies · 392 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pharmacological, non‐invasive brain stimulation and psychological interventions, and their combination, for treating depression after stroke 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.