Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24551100›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Efficacy and safety of therapies for acute ischemic stroke in China: a network meta-analysis of 13289 patients from 145 randomized controlled trials.

Bowen Yang, Jingpu Shi, Xin Chen, Bing Ma, Hao Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Safety and tolerability of Rinvecalinase Alfa (DM199) for acute ischemic stroke (ReMEDy1).International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2026
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bowen YangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Center of Evidence Based Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Jingpu ShiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Center of Evidence Based Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xin ChenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Center of Evidence Based Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Bing MaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Center of Evidence Based Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Hao SunDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Center of Evidence Based Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany of these therapies have been compared against placebos, but have not been directly compared against each other. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of several commonly used drugs for AIS directly or indirectly.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to April 2013 for AIS therapies. The primary outcome measures were the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores and the clinical effective rate. A fixed-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression are performed; lastly, performed a mixed treatment comparison was performed through the Bayesian methods.

resultsOutcome of efficacy of therapies for acute ischemic stroke are as followed: All of the therapies mentioned above yielded results a more effective result than placebo, Sodium ozagrel (RR 3.86, 95%CI 3.18-4.61); Sodium ozagrel + edaravone (RR 9.60, 95%CI 7.04-13.06); Edaravone (RR 4.07, 95%CI 3.30-5.01); Edaravone + Kininogenase (RR 15.33, 95%CI 10.03-23.05). The significant difference in efficacy between edaravone monotherapy and Sodium ozagrel + edaravone was evident (RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.08-0.61) and was also significant between efficacy of edaravone + Kininogenase and Sodium ozagrel (RR 4.00, 95%CI 2.47-6.24). The differences between the risk and benefit were not significant when comparing Sodium ozagrel and edaravone or edaravone + Kininogenase and Sodium ozagrel + Edaravone for AIS. Outcome of the defect of neurological function: Placebo served a significant difference in treating the defects of neurological function compared with Sodium ozagrel (WMD = -3.11, 95%CI -4.43 to -1.79), Sodium ozagrel + edaravone (WMD = -6.25, 95%CI -7.96 to -4.54) and Edaravone + Kininogenase (WMD =  -3.47, 95%CI -5.73 to -1.21).

conclusionsIt provides that the efficacy of edaravone monotherapy in treatment was not more effective than Sodium ozagrel + edaravone.The efficacy of edaravone + Kininogenase monotherapy in treatment was more effective than Sodium ozagrel. Edaravone + Kininogenase and Sodium ozagrel + Edaravone appeared the most effective treatments. And Sodium ozagrel, Sodium ozagrel + edaravone, Edaravone + Kininogenase can improve the nerve dysfunction.

Indexed as

AgedAntipyrineBayes TheoremChinaCoagulantsDrug Therapy, CombinationEdaravoneFibrinolytic AgentsFree Radical ScavengersHumansKallikreinsMethacrylatesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeTreatment OutcomeAntipyrineCoagulantsEdaravoneFibrinolytic AgentsFree Radical ScavengersKallikreinsMethacrylatesozagrel

Identifiers

PMID24551100
PMCPMC3923787
OpenAlexW2080959549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.