Ginkgo biloba for acute ischaemic stroke

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Ir a:

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Ginkgo biloba versus control, Outcome 1 Proportion of patients with improvement of neurological deficit at the end of follow up.

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Ginkgo biloba versus control, Outcome 2 Outcome reported as continuous variable (neurological deficit) at follow up.

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis, Outcome 1 By treatment type.

Comparison 1. Ginkgo biloba versus control

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion of patients with improvement of neurological deficit at the end of follow up Show forest plot	9	737	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.66 [1.79, 3.94]

1.1 MESSS	9	737	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.66 [1.79, 3.94]
2 Outcome reported as continuous variable (neurological deficit) at follow up Show forest plot	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [‐8.90, 10.52]

2.1 MSS	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.81 [‐8.90, 10.52]

Comparison 1. Ginkgo biloba versus control

Comparison 2. Subgroup analysis

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 By treatment type Show forest plot	9	737	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.66 [1.79, 3.94]

1.1 Ginkgo biloba extract injections	4	307	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.00 [1.63, 5.55]
1.2 Ginkgo biloba tablets	5	430	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.44 [1.46, 4.07]

Comparison 2. Subgroup analysis