ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Comparison of efficacy and safety between loading-dose atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in cerebral infarction.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the efficacy and safety of loading-dose atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in the treatment of cerebral infarction (CI).
methodsA total of 151 CI patients treated at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Qiqihar Medical University from January 2015 to February 2020 retrospectively were selected and divided into four groups: conventional atorvastatin, loading-dose atorvastatin, conventional rosuvastatin, and loading-dose rosuvastatin. Primary outcomes assessed included changes in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, clinical efficacy, alterations in serum lipid indices, liver function, inflammation markers, CI indices, and the incidence of adverse reactions.
resultsAfter treatment, all groups showed a significant decrease in NIHSS scores (all P<0.0001). The loading-dose groups exhibited greater reductions in NIHSS scores compared to the conventional groups (both P<0.0001). No significant difference was found in NIHSS scores between the two loading-dose groups (P>0.05). The loading-dose groups demonstrated higher efficacy than the conventional groups (both P<0.05), with no significant difference between the two loading-dose groups (both P>0.05). Loading-dose rosuvastatin showed superior improvement in blood lipid control compared to loading-dose atorvastatin (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in liver function indices among the groups (all P>0.05). Inflammation and myocardial indices intensified 24 hours after treatment, with milder intensification in the loading-dose rosuvastatin group compared to the loading-dose atorvastatin group (P<0.05). The incidences of adverse reactions did not significantly differ among the groups (all P>0.05).
conclusionBoth loading-dose atorvastatin and rosuvastatin demonstrated increased clinical efficacy in the treatment of CI patients, ensuring safety and effectiveness. However, rosuvastatin exhibited superior efficacy in blood lipid control. These findings provide valuable guidance for the clinical management of CI.
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.