| Title |
Cerebrolysin for functional recovery in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s124273 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zefeng Wang, Ligen Shi, Shenbin Xu, Jianmin Zhang |
| Abstract |
Cerebrolysin has been shown to have an inconsistent efficacy on functional recovery in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate the value of cerebrolysin and to explore the potential influencing factors. The main electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were searched. The primary outcome was functional recovery at Day 90. The secondary outcomes included mortality and adverse events. A total of 1,649 patients with AIS were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Cerebrolysin had no significant effect on functional recovery at Day 90 compared with the effect of placebo as shown by the modified Rankin Scale response (relative risk [RR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-2.24, P=0.28), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale response (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.28, P=0.77), and Barthel Index response (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.08, P=0.44). In safety analysis, cerebrolysin did not increase the risk of adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P=0.67), risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.86-1.66, P=0.29), or the mortality rate (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57-1.31, P=0.49). In conclusion, routine administration of cerebrolysin to patients with AIS cannot be supported by the available evidence from RCTs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 23% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,105
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,873
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#36
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.