ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Efficacy of Guhong injection
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-marketing safety evaluation of Guhong Injection: a multicenter, prospective real-world study of 30,000 cases in China.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost studies on Guhong injection have involved a single center with a small sample size, and the level of clinical evidence is low.
aimTo assess the safety and efficacy of Guhong injection for mild ischemic stroke (IS).
methodsA total of 399 IS patients treated at six hospitals from August 2018 to August 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were given Guhong injection (experimental group) or Butylphthalide and Sodium Chloride Injection (control group). Changes in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were observed before treatment and at 1, 2, and 3 wk after treatment in each group. The efficacy and safety of Guhong injection for IS were assessed. Other medications taken by the patients were confounding factors for efficacy assessment. These factors were controlled by propensity score matching, and the results were further analyzed based on the matching.
resultsThe marked response rates at three follow-up visits were 64.64%, 74.7%, and 66.7% in the experimental group, and 48.26%, 45.4%, and 22.2% in the control group. The marked response rates increased significantly in the experimental group compared with the control group (
conclusionGuhong injection is safe and more effective than Butylphthalide and Sodium Chloride Injection for treatment of IS.
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.