↓ Skip to main content

Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cerebrolysin for acute ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007026.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina, Tatyana Abakumova, Ludivine Vernay

Abstract

Cerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from pigs' brain tissue, which has potential neuroprotective and neurotrophic properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries. To assess the benefits and risks of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke. In May 2016 we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, LILACS, OpenGrey, and a number of Russian Databases. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, and contacted the manufacturer of cerebrolysin, EVER Neuro Pharma GmbH (formerly Ebewe Pharma). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cerebrolysin, started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke. Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We identified six RCTs (1501 participants) that met the inclusion criteria.We evaluated risk of bias and judged it to be unclear for generation of allocation sequence in four studies and low in two studies; unclear for allocation concealment in five studies and low in one study; high for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) in five studies and unclear in one study; unclear for blinding; high for selective reporting in four studies and unclear in two; and high for other sources of bias in three studies and unclear in the rest. The manufacturer of cerebrolysin, pharmaceutical company EVER Neuro Pharma, supported three multi-centre studies, either totally, or providing cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians.None of the included trials reported on poor functional outcome defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period or early death (within two weeks of stroke onset).All-cause death: we extracted data from five trials (1417 participants). There was no difference in the number of deaths: 46/714 in cerebrolysin group versus 47/703 in placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.91 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.35 (5 trials, 1417 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Serious adverse events (SAEs): there was no significant difference in the total number of SAEs with cerebrolysin (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.67). This comprised no difference in fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38) and an increase in the number of people with non-fatal SAEs (20/667 with cerebrolysin and 8/668 with placebo: RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.58, P = 0.03) (3 trials, 1335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Total number of people with adverse events: three trials reported on this. There was no difference in the total number of people with adverse events: 308/667 in cerebrolysin group versus 307/668 in placebo group; RR 0.97 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, random-effects model (3 trials, 1335 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The findings of this Cochrane Review do not demonstrate clinical benefits of cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke. We found moderate-quality evidence of an increase in non-fatal SAEs with cerebrolysin use but not in total SAEs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Unknown 13 81%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 13%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 13 81%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#868,964
of 13,390,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,744
of 10,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,228
of 263,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,390,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.