Efficacy and tolerability of Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761® in dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence for the efficacy of Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761(®) in dementia. Seven of 15 randomized, placebo-controlled trials in patients with dementia identified by database searches met all our selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In these trials, patients were treated with 120 mg or 240 mg per day of the defined extract EGb 761 or placebo. Efficacy was assessed using validated tests and rating scales for the cognitive domain, the functional domain (activities of daily living), and global assessment. Tolerability was evaluated by risk differences based on incidences of adverse events and premature discontinuation rates. Of 2,684 outpatients randomized to receive treatment for 22-26 weeks, 2,625 represented the full analysis sets (1,396 for EGb 761 and 1,229 for placebo). Standardized mean differences for change in cognition (-0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.98, -0.05; P=0.03), activities of daily living (-0.44; 95% CI -0.68, -0.19; P<0.001), and global rating (-0.52; 95% CI -0.92, -0.12; P=0.01) significantly favored EGb 761 compared with placebo. Statistically significant superiority of EGb 761 over placebo was confirmed by responder analyses as well as for patients suffering from dementia with neuropsychiatric symptoms. Treatment-associated risks in terms of relative risks of adverse events and premature withdrawal rates did not differ noticeably between the two treatment groups. In conclusion, meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy and good tolerability of Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761 in patients with dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".