The effect of NeuroAiD™ (MLC601) on cerebral blood flow velocity in subjects' post brain infarct in the middle cerebral artery territory

Shahripour, Reza Bavarsad; Shamsaei, Gholamreza; Hosein, Pakdaman; Majdinasab, Nastaran; Nejad, Ehsan Mohammadiani; Sajedi, Seyed Aidin; Norouzi, Mehdi; Hemmati, Ahmad; Manouchehri, Reza Haj; Shiravi, Abolfazl

doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2011.01.002

Cited by 33 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We combined the results reported by studies China 01, China 02 [7] and Shahripour et al [16]. The Chinese studies reported outcomes based on DTER (item 8), whereas Shahripour et al [16] used BI.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Chinese studies reported outcomes based on DTER (item 8), whereas Shahripour et al [16] used BI. The pooled analysis is presented in figure 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study was identified through personal contact of the author (C.C.). In total, 5 studies were short-listed for full text evaluation [7,14,15,16,17]. Of these, 1 was the previous systematic review of 2 unpublished Chinese trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found that in general there was low risk of bias in the included studies for the domains that were important for our objectives. Nevertheless, 1 study [16] had incomplete outcome data assessment (for BI). In the ‘worst-case scenario' the pooled effect became statistically insignificant and heterogeneity increased to 65% (analysis not shown).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 6 included trials compared MLC601 to placebo [14,15,16] or another treatment, i.e. piracetam [17] and Buchang [7].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety of MLC601 (NeuroAiD®), a Traditional Chinese Medicine, in Poststroke Recovery: A Systematic Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Subsequent to a pooled analysis of 2 trials, several more studies have been published assessing the benefit of MLC601 in stroke patients. Hence, it is timely to conduct an updated meta-analysis to frame the interpretation of the results of an ongoing large multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of MLC601 in improving the recovery of stroke patients. Methods: PubMed® and the Cochrane Library® databases were searched for trials evaluating MLC601 in stroke patients. Primary outcome was functional independence, assessed by the Barthel Index or the Diagnostic Therapeutic Effects of Apoplexy scoring system, item 8. Secondary outcomes were improvement in functional independence scores, motor recovery, reduction in visual field defect and increase in cerebral blood flow. Two authors performed the article selection, appraisal and data extraction while resolving differences through discussion or consulting a third author. Data were analyzed in RevMan5®. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Results: This review included 6 studies with overall low risk of bias but some clinical heterogeneity. MLC601 increased the chances of achieving functional independence after stroke compared to control treatments (risk ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.31-4.23). No deaths and 4 serious adverse events were reported in the MLC601 group, although detail was sparse with inconsistent reporting. Conclusions: There is evidence that MLC601 as an add-on to standard treatment could be effective in improving functional independence and motor recovery and is safe for patients with primarily nonacute stable stroke.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Chinese studies reported outcomes based on DTER (item 8), whereas Shahripour et al [16] used BI. The pooled analysis is presented in figure 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%