ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Natural product extracts for ischemic stroke: a methodological evaluation and meta-epidemiological analysis.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite numerous systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on natural product extracts (NPEs) for ischemic stroke, their methodological limitations and redundancy are unquantified, and the impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement remains unclear. This meta-epidemiological study aims to evaluate the methodological quality of these SRs/MAs, examine PRISMA's impact on the methodological quality, and quantify the frequency of redundant publications. Methods: We systematically searched for SRs/MAs of NPEs for ischemic stroke. Methodological quality was assessed with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2). Logistic regression was used to analyze associated factors. Redundancy was classified using PIC (population, intervention and comparison) frameworks as original, conceptual replication, or excessive replication. Seventy-nine SRs/MAs of NPEs were included, of which 68 focused specifically on Ginkgo biloba L. extracts (GBEs) and Panax notoginseng (Burkill) F.H.Chen extracts (PNEs) and were further analyzed for redundancy. Results: 86.1% (68/79) of included SRs/MAs were rated "critically low," primarily due to unregistered protocols (79.7%, 63/79) and absent lists of excluded studies (94.9%, 75/79). Publications following PRISMA 2020 statement showed improved protocol registration (OR = 10.04 [2.56-39.33]; p < 0.001), risk of bias assessment (OR = 22.96 [2.86-182.63]; p = 0.003), and appropriate methods for statistical combination (OR = 3.23 [1.27-8.23]; p = 0.014). Among 55 non-benchmark SRs/MAs focusing on GBEs and PNEs, 85.5% (47/55) were redundant publications, comprising 34 conceptual and 13 excessive replications. Conclusion: SRs/MAs on NPEs for ischemic stroke exhibit suboptimal methodological quality and high redundancy. Although PRISMA statement improved the methodological quality, prospective protocol registration and transparent search process are imperative to enhance evidence synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.