SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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: Shuxuening injection (SXNI), a standardized injectable formulation of Methods: Randomized controlled trials published before 1 September 2025, were searched in eight databases. Patients had vascular cognitive impairment (VCI), with the control group receiving conventional treatment and the treatment group receiving additional SXNI therapy. The primary outcome was the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), while secondary outcomes included the Hasegawa Dementia Scale (HDS), Barthel Index (BI), overall response rate, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and adverse event incidence. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Risk ratios (RR) were used for binary variables; mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for continuous variables. Results: Twenty-two trials (n = 2,375) were included. All trials were conducted in China between 2005 and 2025. Compared with the control group, SXNI was associated with higher MMSE (MD 3.61, 95% CI 3.06-4.17), HDS (MD 1.30, 95% CI 0.21-2.39), and BI (MD 9.06, 95% CI 4.66-13.45), a higher overall response rate (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.21-1.33), and lower NIHSS (MD -6.17, 95% CI -7.90 to -4.45). Seven studies reported adverse events; and there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.36-1.44). Conclusion: The addition of SXNI to conventional treatment may provide additional benefits in cognition, neurological function, and activities of daily living with no significant increase in reported adverse events compared with conventional treatment. However, the certainty of evidence is limited by methodological weaknesses and uncertainty regarding the comparability of preparations from different manufacturers. Therefore, high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=557472, identifier CRD42024557472.
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.