Talk:Cerebrolysin

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cerebrolysin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Expanding from Russian

I am expanding the article from its Russian translation. Slow process as that article needed to be significantly revised as well. Very prominent nootropic in Russia and Asia with more accepted use overseas. Slow process wading through the literature. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statement regarding rate of Serious Adverse Events

In the beginning of the article, it states the following (twice) under the subheader 'Stroke': "cerebrolysin use was associated with a higher rate of spontaneous adverse events requiring hospitalization." Then under the header "Adverse effects" it states the opposite: "In trials studying the use of cerebrolysin after acute stroke, there was no increased risk of "serious adverse events" requiring hospitalization.

These statements are complete opposites while both maintain the grade of adverse effects as those requiring hospitalization, which are always classified as serious within the medical literature.

For both statements the same paper is referenced [2]. Upon examining the paper it becomes clear that the meta-analysis shows no difference in the total number of Severe Adverse Effects(SAE), while stating the evidence available to date is of poor to moderate quality.

They do state that there was a potential increase in the number of non-fatal SAE's, but this would mean there was a decrease in fatal SAE's, else the total number of SAE couldn't remain the same. This would imply it had a slight benefit, but they conclude that there was probably none. This clearly shows the evidence is of too poor quality to make any sensible conclusions, except for the fact that there was no difference in total SAE's.

The claim in the current wikipedia article that there was an increase in the rate of SAE's should therefore be removed and instead the conclusion should be that a recent meta-analysis found no significant changes to the rate of SAE to be likely, and that they found no improvement of symptoms in people with a stroke specifically, although stressing that the evidence for this is of insufficient quality. It could be stressed that it's important to conduct proper independent randomized double-blind placebo-controlled studies, as these are debilitating diseases well worth the economic cost of research to society.

Any claims of harm (or benefit) need to be properly substantiated, which is currently not possible.