Background Several studies investigated the role of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in improving poststroke recovery; thus, we have decided to conduct this systematic review and meta‐analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs in poststroke recovery. Methods and Results In this meta‐analysis we searched the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The studies were included if they were placebo‐controlled trials in design and reported SSRIs’ effects on poststroke depression, anxiety, disability, dependence, motor abilities, and cognitive functions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials. The search yielded 44 articles that included 16 164 patients, and about half of the participants were treated with SSRIs. Our results showed that SSRIs had a significant effect on preventing depression (weighted mean difference [WMD], −7.05 [95% CI, −11.78 to −2.31]), treating depression according to the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (WMD, −1.45 [95% CI, −2.77 to −0.14]), anxiety (relative risk, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.09–0.61]), dependence (WMD, 8.86 [95% CI, 1.23–16.48]), motor abilities according to National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (WMD, −0.79 [95% CI, −1.42 to −0.15]), and cognitive functions (WMD, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.12–1.89]). On the other hand, no significant effect of SSRIs on disability was observed. Additionally, we found that treating with SSRIs increased the risk of seizures (relative risk, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.13–1.83]), whereas there was no difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding between SSRIs and a placebo. Conclusions Our study showed that SSRIs are effective in preventing and treating depression, and improving anxiety, motor function, cognitive function, and dependence in patients after stroke. These benefits were only reproducible with the citalopram subanalysis but not fluoxetine. Further well‐conducted placebo‐controlled trials are needed to investigate the safety and efficacy of citalopram among patients after stroke. Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42021285766.

Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are one of the most common side effects of statins. This study aimed to explore the significance of SAMS among statin users by comparing statin users with a control group. To achieve our aims, a propensity score matching the retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single center tertiary hospital. The statin muscle symptoms were assessed using the Proposed Statin Myalgia Index Score, whereas the patient's adherence to medications was evaluated using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8. We included 743 patients in our study; of them, 64.9% were on statin, whereas the rest were controls (35.1%). After propensity score matching, patients on statin had significantly higher rates of SAMS (5.0%) compared with control (1.6%) (AOR = 3.209; 95% CI: 1.020-10.091). However, there was no significant difference between statin users and controls in medications nonadherence (P-value = 0.820). Our analysis among statins users revealed that moderate-intensity (2.671; 95% CI: 1.691-3.310) and high-intensity (3.552; 95% CI: 2.190-4.129) statin therapy was significantly associated with SAMS. In addition, autoimmune diseases were significantly associated with SAMS occurrence (AOR = 32.301; 95% CI: 1.785-584.374). Also, patients on PPIs had significantly less occurrence of SAMS (AOR = 0.145; 95% CI: 0.044-0.483), whereas patients on antiepileptic drugs had significantly higher SAMS occurrence (AOR = 72.337; 95% CI: 2.649-1975.201). Regarding MACE among statin users, there was no significant difference in the 1-year or 5-year MACE rate between statin users and controls. Our study suggests that SAMS are significant among statin users and must be addressed by health care providers to ensure that patients are still adherent to their medications and hence protected against cardiac events.

No abstract

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic mandated the change from face-to-face learning to distance learning. As a result, the quality of distance learning worldwide is questionable. Objectives and aimsThe aim of this study is to investigate the quality of distance learning among university students at the University of Jordan, as well as its determinants and obstacles. MethodsA questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted among undergraduate students at the University of Jordan from May 29 to July 11, 2021. Using a quantitative approach, students' attitudes toward and perceptions of online and distance education were analyzed. The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES) tool was used to evaluate the quality of distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic. IBM SPSS Version 25 was used for data analysis. ResultsThe total number of participants was 486, and the mean total DELES score was 61.6 ± 24.6. The lowest mean of DELES score components was for the active learning component (6.9 ± 2.9). Moreover, 65.9% of the students were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of distance learning. The quality of distance learning derived by the total DELES score was determined by several general demographics, and students' perceptions and attitudes. ConclusionsThe present study showed a low quality of distance learning and high levels of dissatisfaction among students at the University of Jordan. Thus, improvement of distance learning quality by filling its infrastructural defects and the implementation of its adjunct tools are required. In addition, we recommend collaboration with regional and international educational institutions to improve the quality of distance learning.

No abstract