Skip to main content

Table 3 ShenXiong glucose injection plus conventional treatment compared to conventional treatment for acute ischemic stroke

From: Effectiveness and safety of ShenXiong glucose injection for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and GRADE approach

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risksa (95 % CI)

Relative effect (95 % CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

 

Conventional treatment

ShenXiong glucose plus conventional treatment

    

Death

none

none

none

none

none

CRITICAL

NFDS Follow-up: 1–4 weeks

none

The mean NFDS in the intervention groups was -4.70 lower (−6.04 to −3.36 lower)

-

821 (7 studies)

moderate

CRITICAL

NFDS - 1 week

none

The mean NFDS - 1 week in the intervention groups was −2.37 lower (−5.44 lower to 0.7 higher)

-

156 (2 studies)

low [1, 2]

CRITICAL

NFDS - 2 weeks

none

The mean NFDS - 2 weeks in the intervention groups was −5.39 lower (−6.90 to −3.87 lower)

-

378 (4 studies)

moderate [36]

CRITICAL

NFDS - 4 weeks

none

The mean NFDS - 4 weeks in the intervention groups was −5.16 lower (−6.49 to −3.83 lower)

-

287 (4 studies)

 high [7, 8]

CRITICAL

Barthel score

none

The mean Barthel score in the intervention groups was 19.98 higher (10.17 to 29.79 higher)

-

477 (5 studies)

low

CRITICAL

Barthel score - 1 week Follow-up: mean 1 weeks

none

The mean Barthel score - 1 week in the intervention groups was 4.65 higher (−1.56 lower to 10.86 higher)

-

70 (1 study)

moderate [2]

CRITICAL

Barthel score - 2 weeks Follow-up: mean 2 weeks

none

The mean Barthel score - 2 weeks in the intervention groups was 12.14 higher (0.47 to 23.82 higher)

-

150 (2 studies)

low [2, 9]

CRITICAL

Barthel score - 4 weeks Follow-up: mean 4 weeks

none

The mean Barthel score - 4 weeks in the intervention groups was 28.09 higher (15.12 to 41.07 higher)

-

257 (4 studies)

low [10, 11]

CRITICAL

Response rate Follow-up: mean 4 weeks

Study population

RR 1.17 (1.1 to 1.24)

880 (11 studies)

moderate [10]

IMPORTANT

736 per 1000

861 per 1000 (810 to 913)

Moderate

750 per 1000

878 per 1000 (825 to 930)

  1. Patient or population: patients with acute ischemic stroke Settings: inpatients, Intervention: ShenXiong glucose injection plus conventional treatment, Comparison: conventional treatment
  2. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95 % confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95 % CI)
  3. CI Confidence interval
  4. RR Risk ratio
  5. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  6. () High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  7. () Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  8. () Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  9. () Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  10. [1] Heterogeneity test: P = 0.10, I2 = 63 %. Obvious inconsistency exists in only two studies
  11. [2] Imprecision (large width of CI). Sample sizes and number of events less than the number of patients generated by a conventional sample size calculation for a single adequately powered trial
  12. [3] As the random sequence generation was not clearly described in only two of the trials, the overall risk of bias is not serious
  13. [4] Heterogeneity test: P = 0.005; I2 = 77 %. The available data do not permit an interpretation as to the reason for some of the inconsistencies that were found. Such inconsistency is also a basis for downgrading the level of evidence in support of ShenXiong glucose injection for AIS
  14. [5] Although the sample sizes and number of events (n = 292) less than the number of patients generated by a conventional sample size (n = 300) calculation for a single adequately powered trial, the change of our confidence for this outcome not serious, thus not downgrade
  15. [6] The funnel plot present asymmetric trend
  16. [7] Although the sample sizes and number of events (n = 287) less than the number of patients generated by a conventional sample size (n = 300) calculation for a single adequately powered trial, the overall imprecision for this outcome is not serious, thus not to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision
  17. [8] Heterogeneity: P = 0.02; I2 = 82 %. The available data do not permit an interpretation as to the reason for some of the inconsistencies that were found. Such inconsistency is also a basis for downgrading the level of evidence
  18. [9] Heterogeneity: P < 0.00001; I2 = 90 %. The available data do not permit an interpretation as to the reason for some of the inconsistencies that were found. Such inconsistency is also a basis for downgrading the level of evidence
  19. [10] The funnel plot present asymmetric trend on clinical efficacy, and the risk of publication bias may exist in somewhat
  20. [11] Heterogeneity: (P = 0.39); I2 = 0 %, mild inconsistency maybe exists in 4 studies