ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of edaravone dexborneol in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) causes disability. Edaravone-dexborneol (ED) acts through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. This meta-analysis evaluated ED as an adjunct to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Databases were searched through July 2026 for studies comparing ED with control in AIS patients undergoing EVT. The primary outcome was 90-day functional independence (mRS 0-2). Hartung-Knapp random-effects models, RoB 2, ROBINS-I, and GRADE were used. Eight studies (4 RCTs and 4 observational studies; n = 5101) were included. However, the number of participants contributing to each pooled analysis varied according to outcome availability. Notably, all eight included studies were conducted exclusively in China. Five studies involving 2057 patients contributed to the primary outcome analysis. The overall pooled analysis failed to show a statistically significant improvement in functional independence (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.90-1.77), indicating substantial uncertainty in the combined evidence. RCTs showed improved functional independence (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04-1.19) and reduced hemorrhagic transformation (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.46-0.66). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Current evidence does not demonstrate a statistically significant overall benefit of ED on functional independence, though a modest improvement was observed in randomized trials alone. While ED was associated with reduced hemorrhagic transformation without an increase in major safety events, these results are derived exclusively from Chinese cohorts and are limited by unadjusted observational data. These findings must be interpreted with caution, and larger, multi-national randomized trials are required to determine true efficacy and global applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42778762What 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.