SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002
Piracetam for acute ischaemic stroke.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Piracetam for acute ischaemic stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for acute ischaemic stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2002Pooled it
- Lactate: A Theranostic Biomarker for Metabolic Psychiatry?Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Piracetam: a review of pharmacological properties and clinical uses.CNS drug reviews · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPiracetam has neuroprotective and antithrombotic effects which may help to reduce death and disability in people with acute stroke.
objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of piracetam in acute presumed ischaemic stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Review Group Trials Register (last searched April 2001). In addition we searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library 2001, issue 2), MEDLINE (1966-April 2001), EMBASE (1980-April 2001), and ISI Science Citation Index (1981- April 2001). We also handsearched 15 journals and contacted the manufacturer to identify further published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing piracetam with control, with at least mortality reported and entry to the trial within approximately 48 hours of stroke onset. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data and assessed trial quality and this was checked by the other two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for missing information. MAIN
resultsThree trials involving 1002 people were included, with one trial contributing 93% of the data. Participants' ages ranged from 40 to 85, and both sexes were equally represented. Piracetam was associated with a statistically non significant increase in death at one month (approximately 31% increase, 95% confidence interval 81% increase to 5% reduction). This trend was no longer apparent in the large trial after correction for imbalance in stroke severity. Limited data showed no difference between the treatment and control groups for functional outcome, dependency or proportion of patients dead or dependent. Adverse effects were not reported. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is some suggestion (but no statistically significant result) of an unfavourable effect of piracetam on early death, but this may have been caused by baseline differences in stroke severity in the trials. There is not enough evidence to assess the effect of piracetam on dependency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12519543What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.