Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25600516›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2015

A systematic review and meta-analysis of Ginsenoside-Rg1 (G-Rg1) in experimental ischemic stroke.

Cheng-long Xie, Wen-Wen Wang, Xiao-dong Xue, Su-fang Zhang, Jing Gan, Zhen-Guo Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effect of uric acid in animal models of ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cheng-long XieDepartment of Neurology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine 200092, 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, China.
Wen-Wen WangThe center of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou 325027, China.
Xiao-dong XueDepartment of Neurology, Cang Nan county hospital, Wenzhou 325800, China.
Su-fang ZhangDepartment of Neurology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine 200092, 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, China.
Jing GanDepartment of Neurology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine 200092, 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, China.
Zhen-Guo LiuDepartment of Neurology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine 200092, 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai, China.
XinHua Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The neuroprotective actions of Ginsenoside-Rg1 (G-Rg1) have been documented for experimental stroke therapy. We used a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of G-Rg1 in experimental ischemic stroke. We identified studies describing the efficacy of G-Rg1 in animal models of focal cerebral ischemia. Primary outcomes were infarct volume and neurological function score (NFS). In all, eleven studies reported significant effects of G-Rg1 for improving the NFS when compared with the control group (P < 0.00001), and four studies reported significant effects of G-Rg1 for reducing infarct volume compared with middle cerebral artery occlusion group (P < 0.00001). Meanwhile, studies reported G-Rg1 was more efficacious than positive control drug nimodipine (0.7 or 1 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) according to NFS (P = 0.009) and infarct volume (p = 0.0002). The results demonstrate a marked efficacy of G-Rg1 in experimental acute ischemic stroke, but raise concerns that our value of effect size might be overestimate due to factors such as study quality and possible publication bias. Even so, the findings suggest G-Rg1 as a candidate neuroprotective drug for human ischemic stroke.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain IschemiaDisease Models, AnimalGinsenosidesHumansMiceNeuroprotective AgentsRatsStrokeginsenoside Rg1GinsenosidesNeuroprotective Agents

Identifiers

PMID25600516
PMCPMC5379000
OpenAlexW1996151413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.