| Literature DB >> 35047043 |
Zhi Xin Geng1, Feng Gao1, Junjing Guo2, Bingzhou Guo2, Chunyu Liu1, Taiwei Dong1, Min Li1, Yang Bai3, Peifeng Wei1,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: By integrating meta-analysis and network pharmacology strategy, the clinical efficacy of Zhishe Tongluo capsule in the treatment of cerebral infarction was evaluated, and the intervention mechanism was preliminary explored.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047043 PMCID: PMC8763521 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2471927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Literature screening process and results.
Basic characteristics of included studies.
| Eligible studies | Age | Sample size (T/C) | Intervention measures | Course/year | Outcome index | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | C | |||||
| Hongying MO 2015 [ | T: 73.32 ± 7.94 C: 71.44 ± 8.23 | 100 (50/50) | Conventional therapy + ZTC | Conventional therapy | Nil | ① |
| Hongying MO 2016 [ | T: 52.78 ± 2.56 C: 53.69 ± 3.23 | 60 (30/30) | Conventional therapy + atorvastatin + ZTC | Conventional therapy + atorvastatin | T: 7.89 ± 1.80 C: 7.52 ± 1.63 | ①③ |
| Hongying MO 2019 [ | — | 122 (61/61) | Conventional therapy + ZTC | Conventional therapy | Nil | ③⑧ |
| Deshen He 2015 [ | T: 45–79 C: 47–78 | 116 (58/58) | Conventional therapy + aspirin, atorvastatin calcium, citicoline + ZTC | Conventional therapy + aspirin, atorvastatin calcium, citicoline | T: 0.03–0.58 C: 0.03–0.58 | ①② |
| Qun Zhang 2015 [ | T: 41–80 C: 43–78 | 350 (184/166) | Conventional therapy + ZTC | Conventional therapy + Xiaoshuan Tongluo tablets | Nil | ①②④⑤ |
| Yi Chun Mao 2017 [ | T: 61.4 ± 8.7 C: 65.2 ± 8.8 | 78 (39/39) | Conventional therapy + ZTC | Conventional therapy | T: 0.03–0.25 C: 0.04–0.42 | ①② |
| Yonggang Wang 2015 [ | T: 62.72 ± 12.41 C: 63.33 ± 11.71 | 156 (78/78) | Conventional therapy + three-stage rehabilitation of stroke + ZTC | Conventional therapy + three-stage rehabilitation of stroke | T: 0.15 ± 0.1 C: 0.14 ± 0.08 | ①②③⑤⑥ |
| Yonggang Wang 2017 [ | T: 74.7 ± 9.2 C: 73.1 ± 9.6 | 112 (56/56) | Conventional therapy + three-stage rehabilitation of stroke + ZTC | Conventional therapy + three-stage rehabilitation of stroke | T: 8.9 ± 3.4 C: 9.3 ± 3.7 | ②③⑤⑦ |
| Peng Lei 2007 [ | T: 60.88 ± 9.03 C: 67.18 ± 35.69 | 88 (66/22) | Conventional therapy + ZTC | Conventional therapy + Naoan capsule | T: 1.2 ± 0.6 C: 1.3 ± 0.69 | ①②④⑤ |
| Qianfeng Ma 2015 [ | T: 61.2 ± 8.9 C: 63.4 ± 8.2 | 96 (48/48) | Conventional therapy + atorvastatin + ZTC | Conventional therapy + atorvastatin | T: 5.6 ± 1.8 C: 6.7 ± 1.9 | ①②③ |
Note.: T—test group; C—control group. (1) Effective rate, (2) incidence of adverse reactions, (3) blood lipid level, (4) neurological deficit score, (5) TCM syndrome score, (6) modified Rankin scale score, and (7) hemorheology.
Figure 2Bias risk assessment.
Figure 3Meta-analysis of the effective rate of conventional treatment combined with the ZTC group and the conventional treatment group.
Figure 4Meta-analysis of the incidence of adverse reactions between the conventional treatments combined with the ZTC group and the conventional treatment group.
Figure 5(a) Meta-analysis of the comparison of TG between the conventional treatments combined with the ZTC group and the conventional treatment group. (b) Meta-analysis of TG heterogeneity in reducing blood lipids.
Figure 6Meta-analysis of the comparison of LDL-C between the conventional treatments combined with the ZTC group and the conventional treatment group.
Figure 7Meta-analysis of HDL-C comparison between conventional treatments combined with the ZTC group and the conventional treatment group.
Figure 8Venn diagram of drugs and disease targets.
Figure 9PPI network of disease targets.
Figure 10Protein map of core target.
Core targets and network topology parameters (top 10).
| Gene | Degree | Betweenness centrality | Closeness centrality |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALB | 98 | 0.08414861 | 0.84027778 |
| AKT1 | 93 | 0.04878968 | 0.81208054 |
| IL-6 | 90 | 0.03732065 | 0.79605263 |
| TNF | 83 | 0.02297471 | 0.76100629 |
| VEGFA | 78 | 0.01594422 | 0.73780488 |
| CASP3 | 76 | 0.02091227 | 0.72891566 |
| EGF | 75 | 0.01998616 | 0.7245509 |
| PTGS2 | 71 | 0.01521421 | 0.70760234 |
| CXCL8 | 70 | 0.01248469 | 0.69942197 |
| MMP9 | 70 | 0.00843371 | 0.70348837 |
Figure 11GO functional enrichment analysis bubble diagram of potential targets.
Figure 12KEGG pathway enrichment analysis.
Molecular docking binding energy of active component and target protein.
| Component | Chemical structural formula | CAS | Degree | Binding energy (kcal/mol) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALB | AKT1 | IL-6 | ||||
| Quercetin | C15H10O7 | 117–39–5 | 610 | −4.7 | −8.17 | −6.85 |
| HDC | C18H17NO3 | 30426–61–0 | 102 | −5.25 | −6.02 | −5.27 |
| Sugio | C30H52O | 64997–52–0 | 101 | −7.91 | −10.79 | −9.35 |
Figure 13Molecular docking results.