Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundIn recent years, L-3-n-butylphthalide (L-NBP) has been used for Parkinson disease dementia (PDD) to attenuate cognitive impairments in China. Therefore, we selected published and qualified clinical trials to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the effectiveness and safety of L-NBP in the treatment of PDD.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of L-NBP in the treatment of PDD.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), and Wan-Fang Database to collect eligible articles. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios or the standard mean deviation with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that L-NBP combined with Western medicine (WM) had a better effect on improving cognitive dysfunction, the total effective rate, symptoms of Parkinson disease (PD), and activities of daily living function than WM alone. Regarding safety, no serious adverse events were observed in the experimental group.ConclusionWe found that L-NBP as a complementary therapy may have a positive therapeutic effect for improving cognitive dysfunction, the total effective rate, symptoms of PD, quality of life, and the related serum factors in the treatment of PDD. Furthermore, L-NBP was a safe treatment for PDD. However, the findings of our meta-analysis may be influenced by the low quality of the included studies. We highlight the need to conduct trials with higher methodological quality.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.