Evidence Hub

The potential value of traditional Chinese medicine monomers in cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury: a network meta-analysis based on animal model

Luo X, Niu JY, Chen HS

BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Background: Cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury (CIRI) is a complex pathological process, which can further aggravate the damage of ischemic tissues. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) monomers, bioactive compounds extracted from Chinese herbal medicines, have been demonstrated to have various protective effects against reperfusion injury. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to investigate the optimal treatment strategy of TCM monomers for CIRI in animal models.

Methods: Four databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to January 06, 2024. First, prospective registration was done at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024496289), the quality of the included studies was evaluated with SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, and statistical analysis was conducted with Stata Version 18.0 and RStudio.

Results: In total, 26 studies were included, involving 506 animals and 12 TCM monomers. The results of a meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared to the control group, puerarin, paeoniflorin, hydroxysafflor yellow A, sinomenine, and salvianolic acid significantly reduced mNSS scores. Furthermore, ginsenoside, scutellarin, and baicalein significantly reduced Longa scores. In addition, salvianolic acid treatment significantly decreased brain water content. Regarding infarct volume, bilobalide, baicalein and puerarin all demonstrated remarkable effects. The network meta-analysis suggested that paeoniflorin might be the most effective intervention in terms of mNSS score,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free