ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy of Colchicine for Secondary Prevention of Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colchicine, a long-established anti-inflammatory medication, has emerged as a potential therapeutic agent for secondary prevention of stroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colchicine in preventing secondary stroke by comprehensively synthesizing available evidence. A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases from inception to November 15, 2024, using comprehensive search strategies. Randomized controlled trials involving colchicine administration for stroke prevention were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software, with risk ratios calculated for stroke incidence and all-cause mortality. The analysis encompassed seven studies involving 23,303 participants. The meta-analysis revealed a borderline significant 24% relative risk reduction in stroke incidence (risk ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.00, p = 0.05). Moderate heterogeneity was observed among studies (I² = 50%). Importantly, no significant difference was found in all-cause mortality between colchicine and control groups (risk ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.17, p = 0.66). While the findings suggest potential benefits of colchicine in stroke prevention, the results warrant cautious interpretation. The study emphasizes the need for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials to definitively establish colchicine's role in comprehensive stroke prevention strategies.
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.