“…A total of 40 studies ( Fu et al, 2011 ; Luo et al, 2011 ; Han et al, 2014 ; Li et al, 2015 ; Wang, 2015 ; Zhou et al, 2015 ; Bu, 2016 ; Cao et al, 2016 ; Huang, 2016 ; Li and Chang, 2016 ; Li et al, 2016 ; Zhang, 2016 ; Zhu et al, 2016 ; Gao, 2017 ; Guo, 2017 ; Hu et al, 2017 ; Li, 2017 ; Liu, 2017 ; Wang and Ning, 2018 ; Xue, 2018 ; Zhang, 2018 ; Fan et al, 2019 ; Liu et al, 2019 ; Xiao et al, 2019 ; Zhang, 2019 ; Li and Liu, 2020 ; Wang et al, 2020 ; Wu, 2020 ; Xiao et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ; Wang et al, 2021 ; Xu, 2021 ; Yang, 2021 ; Huang et al, 2022 ; Ouyang and Zhang, 2022 ; Song et al, 2022 ; Wang, 2022 ; Zhang et al, 2022 ; Zhao, 2022 ; Yan et al, 2023 ) comprising 4,473 participants reported the total efficiency rate, and the pooled data showed that XST improved the total efficiency rate (RR = 1.19; 95% CI [1.15 to 1.23]; p < 0.00001) ( Supplementary Figure S9 ). Considering that high heterogeneity (I 2 = 52%, p < 0.0001) could not be changed significantly through the sensitivity analysis ( Supplementary Figure S10 ), we performed subgroup analyses, respectively, by the duration of treatment (7 days, RR = 1.17; 95% CI [1.02 to 1.34]; p = 0.03; 14 days, RR = 1.16; 95% CI [1.12 to 1.21]; p < 0.00001; 28 days, RR = 1.27; 95% CI [1.20 to 1.34]; p < 0.00001) ( Supplementary Figure S11 ), by the dosage form (XST injection, RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.14 to 1.22]; p < 0.00001; XST oral preparation, RR = 1.55; 95% CI [1.24 to 1.94]; p < 0.00001) ( Supplementary Figure S12 ), by the combination treatment (conventional treatment, RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.13 to 1.24]; p < 0.00001; neuroprotective agent...…”