SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2024
The use of
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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of Shuxuening injection in intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of Fuzheng traditional Chinese medicine injections in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- The role of Panax notoginseng saponins in cerebrovascular neurological disorders: an overview of mechanisms and functions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As a bioactive metabolite preparation widely used in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), the efficacy and safety of Methods: This study included randomized controlled trials published before 26 April 2024 in 8 databases. AIS patients who received intravenous thrombolysis were included. The control group receiving conventional treatment and the treatment group receiving additional PNSI. Primary outcomes were selected as mortality, disability, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were selected as all-cause mortality, improvement of neurological deficit, quality of life, and cerebral injury indicators. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated for binary variables and continuous variables, respectively, based on a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 20 trials involving 1,856 participants were included. None of them reported mortality or disability. There was no significant difference in the adverse events [RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.81] and hemorrhagic transformation [RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.36 to 2.70] between the two groups. Compared to the control group, the treatment group had a better effect in neurological improvement assessed by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [MD: -2.91; 95% CI: -4.76 to -1.06], a better effect in activities of daily living changes in Barthel Index [MD: 9.37; 95% CI: 1.86 to 16.88], and a lower serum neuron-specific enolase level [MD: -2.08; 95% CI: -2.67 to -1.49]. Conclusion: For AIS patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis, the use of PNSI improved neurological deficits and enhanced activity of daily living in the short term without increasing the occurrence rate of adverse events. However, due to the moderate to very low certainty of evidence, it is advisable to conduct high-quality clinical trials to validate the findings of this study. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=466851, Identifier CRD42023466851.
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.