ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Edaravone dexborneol compared to edaravone in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction: A meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Electrochemically-induced regioselective cyclization ofRSC advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically assess the clinical efficacy and safety of edaravone dexborneol compared to those of edaravone in treating acute cerebral infarction. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP to gather randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing edaravone dexborneol with edaravone for treating acute cerebral infarction, covering studies from the database inception to February 2024. After data extraction and quality evaluation, a meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3 and Stada 18.0 statistical software. Results: Seventeen RCTs were enrolled, including 2,778 patients, of which 1,493 and 1,285 were in the observation and control groups, respectively. The meta-analysis revealed that the total effective rate was significantly higher in the edaravone dexborneol group (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.11, 1.24], p < 0.00001) than in the edaravone group. Additionally, the rate of adverse reactions was significantly lower in the edaravone group (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.36, 0.82], p = 0.004). Fourteen days after treatment, the edaravone dexborneol group showed significantly better scores than the edaravone group in the NIHSS (MD = -2.13, 95% CI [-2.90, -1.35], p < 0.00001), Barthel Index (MD = 12.13, 95% CI [7.68, 16.58], p < 0.00001), and modified Rankin Scale (MD = -1.16, 95% CI [-1.75, -0.56], p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Edaravone dexborneol demonstrates superior clinical efficacy and safety compared to edaravone in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction, suggesting it may be a more effective therapeutic option.
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.