Observational studyJournal of medicine and life
C-REGS 2 - Design and methodology of a high-quality comparative effectiveness observational trial.
Observational study in Journal of medicine and life. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- C-REGS2-A multinational, high-quality comparative effectiveness study of Cerebrolysin in moderate acute ischemic stroke.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Cerebrolysin as an add-on treatment for neurorecovery after traumatic brain injury.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Cerebrolysin after Ischemic Stroke: Secondary Analysis of the CARS Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main aim of this study is to systematically record Cerebrolysin treatment modalities and concomitant medication, according to local standards, in patients with moderate to severe neurological deficits after acute ischemic stroke and to assess the impact of these parameters on therapy outcome during early rehabilitation (day 21) and on day 90. An open observational treatment design based on the principles of high-quality comparative effectiveness research (HQCER) has been chosen to capture the therapies as applied in real-world clinical practice. HQCER opens a new horizon for strengthening the validity of the results from observational trials, thereby enhancing the associated level of evidence. Rigorous pre-specification of analytical procedures and tight risk-based centralized monitoring were additional measures to improve the impact of the observational approach. The value for real-world studies has become obvious, and such studies based on comparative effectiveness designs supplement the classical study designs by enabling the inclusion of larger proband numbers and more statistical reliability for practical use.
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.