SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Efficacy and safety of Shenmai injection for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of a Nursing Quality Improvement Checklist in the Emergency Treatment of Trauma Patients.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Natural product extracts for ischemic stroke: a methodological evaluation and meta-epidemiological analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ischemic stroke is a serious and sudden cerebrovascular condition that significantly affects individual's health and imposes a substantial economic burden on medical management. Despite its widespread use in China, there is still a lack of reliable evidence regarding the efficacy of Shenmai injection (SMI) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of SMI in treating AIS through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of SMI in treating AIS were searched for in eight databases from the inception of each database till January 2024. We utilized the ROB 2.0 to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4, while sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments were conducted using Stata 16.1. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,603 AIS patients were included in our meta-analysis. Our results showed that SMI plus conventional treatments (CTs) was more effective than CTs alone in improving the total effective rate (RR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.30, Conclusion: Our study shows that combining SMI with CTs effectively enhances the neurological function of patients with acute cerebral infarction. However, our findings should be interpreted considering the significant heterogeneity and suboptimal quality of the analyzed trials. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024504675, Identifier PROSPERO, CRD42024504675.
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.