ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2023
Safety of butylphthalide and edaravone in patients with ischemic stroke: a multicenter real-world study.
Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Edaravone: Advances on cytoprotective effects, pharmacological properties, and mechanisms of action.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- Unveiling the potential of Butylphthalide: inhibiting osteoclastogenesis and preventing bone loss.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- New therapeutic concepts against ischemia-reperfusion injury in organ transplantation.Expert review of clinical immunologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundButylphthalide (NBP) and edaravone (EDV) injection are common acute ischemic stroke medications in China, but there is a lack of large real-world safety studies on them. This study aimed to determine the incidence of adverse events, detect relevant safety signals, and assess the risk factors associated with these medications in real-world populations.
methodsIn this study, data of acute ischemic stroke patients were extracted from the electronic medical record database of six tertiary hospitals between January 2019 and August 2021. Baseline confounders were eliminated using propensity score matching. The drugs' safety was estimated by comparing the results of 24 laboratory tests standards on liver function, kidney function, lipid level, and coagulation function. The drugs' relative risk was estimated by logistic regression. A third group with patients who did not receive NBP or EDV was constructed as a reference. Prescription sequence symmetry analysis was used to evaluate the associations between adverse events and NBP and EDV, respectively.
results81,292 patients were included in this study. After propensity score matching, the NBP, EDV, and third groups with 727 patients in each group. Among the 15 test items, the incidence of adverse events was lower in the NBP group than in the EDV group, and the differences were statistically significant. The multivariate logistic regression equation revealed that NBP injection was not a promoting factor for abnormal laboratory test results, whereas EDV had statistically significant effects on aspartate transaminase, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol. Prescription sequence symmetry analysis showed that NBP had a weak correlation with abnormal platelet count. EDV had a positive signal associated with abnormal results in gamma-glutamyl transferase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, prothrombin time, and platelet count.
conclusionsIn a large real-world population, NBP has a lower incidence of adverse events and a better safety profile than EDV or other usual medications.
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.