Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35488169›Full record

SynthesisNeurocritical care2022

Safety and Efficacy of Vinpocetine as a Neuroprotective Agent in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Prateek Kumar Panda, Aparna Ramachandran, Pragnya Panda, Indar Kumar Sharawat

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurocritical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Prateek Kumar Panda *Pediatric Neurology Division, Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India.
Aparna Ramachandran *Department of Neurology, IQRAA International Hospital & Research Centre, Kozhikode, Kerala, 673009, India.
Pragnya PandaDepartment of Neurology, King George Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Indar Kumar SharawatPediatric Neurology Division, Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India. sherawatdrindar@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7003-7218
King George's Medical University · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Rishikesh · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVinpocetine as a neuroprotective agent is effective in acute ischemic stroke in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Since the last systematic review has been published in 2008, which didn't find conclusive evidence favoring its use, two more RCTs have also been completed.

methodsRelevant electronic databases were searched with a suitable combination of Medical Subject Headings terms to detect publications describing RCTs exploring the safety and efficacy of vinpocetine in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The risk of bias was determined by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs after full-text review and relevant data extraction. Higgins and Thompson's I

resultsFour placebo-controlled RCTs enrolling a total of 601 and 236 patients in vinpocetine and placebo groups, respectively, were included. The number of patients with death or significant disability was lower in the vinpocetine group than that in the placebo group at both 1 and 3 months (relative risk 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.99 and relative risk 0.67, CI 0.48-0.92, p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). The degree of disability in participants at 1 month and 3 months was also lower in vinpocetine group than that in the placebo group (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% CI 0.03-0.95 and SMD 1.22, CI 0.23-2.24, p = 0.001 and 0.04, respectively). Change in mini-mental state examination score compared with baseline at trial enrolment was also better in the vinpocetine group than in the placebo group (pooled weighted mean difference 0.92, 95% CI 0.02-1.82, p = 0.04).

conclusionsVinpocetine has some promising efficacy in patients with ischemic stroke when used in the acute stage in reducing the disability, but presently there is not enough evidence to suggest that it also reduces case fatality. More double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs of adequate sample size are needed before making recommendations for the routine administration of vinpocetine for all patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Indexed as

Ischemic StrokeNeuroprotective AgentsStrokeVinca AlkaloidsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicNeuroprotective AgentsVinca AlkaloidsvinpocetineAcute ischemic strokeCerebrovascular eventsNeuroprotectionVinpocetine

Identifiers

PMID35488169
PMCPMC9053840
OpenAlexW4225083760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.