Evidence mapPaperPMID 26615387Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2015

Efficacy of Ligustrazine Injection as Adjunctive Therapy for Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Huikai Shao, Lingguo Zhao, Fuchao Chen, Shengbo Zeng, Shengquan Liu, Jiajia Li

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Huikai ShaoSchool of Pharmacy, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Lingguo ZhaoCenter for Disease Prevention and Control of Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Fuchao ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Dongfeng Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China (mainland).
Shengbo ZengCenter for Disease Prevention and Control of Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Shengquan LiuSchool of Pharmacy, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Jiajia LiSchool of Pharmacy, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Guangdong Pharmaceutical University · CNShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNHubei University of Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND In the past decades, a large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of ligustrazine injection combined with conventional antianginal drugs for angina pectoris have been reported. However, these RCTs have not been evaluated in accordance with PRISMA systematic review standards. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ligustrazine injection as adjunctive therapy for angina pectoris. MATERIAL AND METHODS The databases PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Sino-Med, Wanfang Databases, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Google Scholar, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Chinese Science Citation Database were searched for published RCTs. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary outcome measures, including the improvements of electrocardiography (ECG) and the reductions in angina symptoms. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis based on the M score (the refined Jadad scores) were also used to evaluate the effect of quality, sample size, and publication year of the included RCTs on the overall effect of ligustrazine injection. RESULTS Eleven RCTs involving 870 patients with angina pectoris were selected in this study. Compared with conventional antianginal drugs alone, ligustrazine injection combined with antianginal drugs significantly increased the efficacy in symptom improvement (odds ratio [OR], 3.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.39 to 5.40) and in ECG improvement (OR, 3.42; 95% CI: 2.33 to 5.01). Sensitivity and subgroup analysis also confirmed that ligustrazine injection had better effect in the treatment of angina pectoris as adjunctive therapy. CONCLUSIONS The 11 eligible RCTs indicated that ligustrazine injection as adjunctive therapy was more effective than antianginal drugs alone. However, due to the low quality of included RCTs, more rigorously designed RCTs were still needed to verify the effects of ligustrazine injection as adjunctive therapy for angina pectoris.

Indexed as

Angina PectorisChemotherapy, AdjuvantDrugs, Chinese HerbalHumansPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPyrazinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDrugs, Chinese HerbalPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPyrazinestetramethylpyrazine

Identifiers

PMID26615387
PMCPMC4671452
OpenAlexW2174049326

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.