ArticleMedicine2020
Effectiveness comparisons of different Chinese herbal injection therapies for acute cerebral infarction: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and effectiveness of Salvia miltiorrhiza and ligustrazine injection for acute cerebral infarction in Chinese population: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Genetic Polymorphism of NQO1 Gene is Associated with Susceptibility of Ischemic Stroke in Chinese Han Nationality.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute cerebral infarction (ACI) has a high incidence, recurrence rate, and mortality. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) are widely used in the substitution therapy of ACI. Due to the lack of randomized trials comparing the efficacy of various injections directly, it is still difficult to judge the relative efficacy. Therefore, we intend to conduct a network meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit among these CHIs.
methodsAccording to the retrieval strategies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CHI therapies for ACI will be obtained from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, regardless of publication date or language. Studies were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the Cochrane risk bias assessment tool will be used to evaluate the quality of the literature. The network meta-analysis will be performed in Markov Chain Monte Carlo method and carried out with Stata 14 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 software. Ultimately, the evidentiary grade for the results will be evaluated.
resultsThis study will compare the efficacy and safety of CHIs in the treatment of ACI, and give a more reasonable choice.
conclusionOur findings will provide references for future clinical decision and guidance developing.INPLASY registration number: INPLASY202060087.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.