OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of Cerebrolysin for treating acute ischaemic stroke.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2014), EMBASE (1974 to November 2014), Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index (1940 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014), OpenGrey (1980 to December 2014), and a number of Russian Databases (1998 to December 2014). We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, and contacted the manufacturer of Cerebrolysin, EVER Neuro Pharma GmbH (formerly Ebewe Pharma).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing Cerebrolysin started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for at least two weeks with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 146 participants. We evaluated risk of bias and judged it to be high for generation of allocation sequence, low for allocation concealment, high for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), unclear for blinding, high for selective reporting and high for other sources of bias. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin, pharmaceutical company Ebewe, provided Cerebrolysin and the placebo, as well as the randomisation codes. There was no difference in the number of deaths (6/78 in Cerebrolysin group versus 6/68 in placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 2.58) or in the total number of adverse events (16.4% versus 10.3%; RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.82) between the treatment and control groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of Cerebrolysin to people with acute ischaemic stroke cannot be supported by the available evidence from RCTs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this fourth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 30 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham-EMT or other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were employed. At least two review authors independently scrutinised search results and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies for further assessment. We extracted and summarised details of eligible studies using a data extraction sheet, and made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction, and we resolved disagreements after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of low or unclear risk of bias, involving 94 people, were included in the original review; subsequent updates have identified no new trials. All the trials compared the use of EMT with sham-EMT. Meta-analysis of these trials was not possible due to heterogeneity. In the two trials that reported healing rates; one small trial (44 participants) reported that significantly more ulcers healed in the EMT group than the sham-EMT group however this result was not robust to different assumptions about the outcomes of participants who were lost to follow up. The second trial that reported numbers of ulcers healed found no significant difference in healing. The third trial was also small (31 participants) and reported significantly greater reductions in ulcer size in the EMT group however this result may have been influenced by differences in the prognostic profiles of the treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether electromagnetic therapy influences the rate of healing of venous leg ulcers. Further research would be needed to answer this question.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 10 June 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to 10 June 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 10 June 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2014 to 10 June 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2014 to 6 July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.