Citicoline vs standard methods versus placebo: Functional recoveryPatients with scores in the Barthel Index ≥ 95 points
Citicoline showed no clear difference in functional recoveryPatients with scores in the Barthel Index ≥ 95… compared with placebo or standard treatment (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Citicoline vs placebo or standard treatment Functional recoveryPatients with scores in the Barthel Index ≥ 95 points · people with acute ischemic stroke Citicoline showed no clear difference in functional recoveryPatients with scores in the Barthel Index ≥ 95… compared with placebo or standard treatment (low certainty). Citicoline for treating people with acute ischemic stroke (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.03 [0.94, 1.13] | 4 studies · 3850 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citicoline for treating people with acute ischemic stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.