SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Shuxuetong injection for ischemic stroke: an overview of systematic reviews using different methodological quality assessment tools.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shuxuetong injection possesses blood-activating and stasis-resolving effects with meridian-dredging functions. A growing body of evidence on Shuxuetong injection for the treatment of ischemic stroke has been published; however, no study has comprehensively assessed the methodological quality or clinical conclusions of that evidence. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on Shuxuetong injection for ischemic stroke to synthesize and critically assess the data, conclusions, and methodological quality of the included SRs, aiming to provide reliable evidence-based recommendations for clinical decision-making. Methods: Following a pre-registered protocol on PROSPERO, we conducted systematic searches across eight Chinese and English databases from inception to 25 January 2025. Two reviewers independently screened the SRs according to the eligibility criteria, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion to reach a consensus. Data were extracted for qualitative synthesis. The overlap in primary studies was quantitatively assessed. Methodological quality, reporting completeness, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were evaluated using AMSTAR-2, PRISMA 2020, ROBIS, and GRADE tools. Results: This overview included 16 SRs. The overlap in primary studies was minimal. Likewise, subgroup analyses comparing conventional therapy (CT) versus Chinese medicine injection combined with CT also indicated low overlap. Methodological evaluation using AMSTAR-2 showed that all included reviews had critically low confidence. Based on PRISMA 2020 (score range: 24.5-31), 13 reviews were graded as meeting moderate-quality criteria and 3 as low quality, with no review rated as high quality. ROBIS assessment revealed a high risk of bias across all included reviews. GRADE evaluations of 125 outcomes showed moderate certainty for 7, low certainty for 21, and very low certainty for 97. Conclusion: Shuxuetong injection demonstrated variable efficacy in improving neurological deficits and activities of daily living, as well as in normalizing hemorheological and other laboratory parameters, with no significant increase in adverse events, indicating a favorable safety profile. However, the credibility of these findings is undermined by the predominantly low or very low quality of the included SRs, as assessed by methodological quality assessment tools. Our findings suggest that the design of future reviews should be rigorously improved in accordance with established methodological criteria to increase confidence in the conclusions. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025638286, identifier CRD42025638286.
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.