Sulfotanshinone Sodium Injection for Unstable Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the effect of sulfotanshinone sodium injection for unstable angina. Methods. We searched for published and unpublished studies up to June 2011. We included randomized controlled trials that confoundedly addressed the effect of sulfotanshinone sodium injection in the treatment of unstable angina. Results. Twenty-five studies involving 2,377 people were included. There was no evidence that sulfotanshinone sodium alone had better or worse effects to routine western medicine treatments in improving clinical symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11) and ECG (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09). However, there was evidence that sulfotanshinone sodium combined with western medications was a better treatment option than western medications alone in improving clinical symptoms (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.3), ECG (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.35), C-reaction protein (mean difference 2.10, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.58), and IL-6 (mean difference -3.85, 95% CI -4.10 to -3.60). There was no difference between sulfotanshinone sodium plus western medications and western medications alone affecting mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.13). Conclusion. Compared with western medications alone, sulfotanshinone sodium combined with western medications may provide more benefits for patients with unstable angina. Further large-scale high-quality trials are warranted.
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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".