MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900860727 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000012374

Salvianolate injection in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction

2018· review· en· W2900860727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang NanZhu, Aichun Ju, Xin Li, Yun Xianghua

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryModified Rankin ScaleRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInternal medicineHemorheologyBlood viscosityRelative riskAdverse effectStroke (engine)Physical therapyIschemic strokeConfidence intervalIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Salvianolate injection (SI) in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction (ACI).We electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Data to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on SI treating ACI up to August 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.A total of 39 RCTs involving 4516 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the Western medicine (WM) therapies group [experimental group (EG)], the total effective rate of SI + WM [control group (CG)] was higher (relative risk = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.24-1.35, P < .00001) in 21 RCTs; SI could improve movement function evaluation scores, including National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, Barthel Index, activities of daily living (P < .00001). There was no significant difference in modified Rankin Scale scores between the 2 groups (P = .008) EG was better than CG in improving Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (P = .001) and Mini-Mental State Examination scores (P < .00001). SI could improved not only the hemorheology indexes, including plasma viscosity, whole blood high-shear viscosity, whole blood low-shear viscosity, fibrinogen (P < .00001), but also high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and C-reactive protein. EG could achieve a better effect on improving the neural deficit scores (P < .00001). There was no significant difference about adverse drug reactions/adverse drug events between the EG and CG (P = .73).Salvianolate can promote recovery of the motor and cognitive function of patients with ACI. However, due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207