4.3 Article

Ginkgo biloba for the improvement of cognitive performance in multiple sclerosis:: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 376-385

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458506071213

关键词

cognition; double-blind method; Ginkgo biloba; multiple sclerosis; neuropsychological tests; placebos; quality of life; randomized controlled trials

资金

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [P50AT00066-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine if Ginkgo biloba (GB) improves the cognitive performance of subjects with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of GB, 120 mg twice a day or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes were: the long delay free recall from the California Verbal Learning Test-II; the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test; the Controlled Oral Word Association Test; the Symbol Digit Modalities Test; Useful Field of View Test; and the color-word interference condition from the Stroop Color and Word Test. Results On completion, the GB group (n =20) was 4.5 seconds (95% confidence interval (Cl) (7.6, 0.9), P =0.015) faster than the placebo group (n = 18) on the color-word interference condition of the Stroop test. Subjects who were more impaired at baseline experienced more improvement with GB (treatment*baseline interaction, F=8.10, P=0.008). We found no differences on the other neuropsychological tests. Subjects on GB reported fewer cognitive difficulties in the Retrospective Memory Scale of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire than subjects on placebo (1.5 points, 95% CI (2.6, 0.3), P=0.016). No serious drug related side-effects occurred and GB did not alter platelet function assays. Conclusion Overall, GB did not show a statistically significant improvement in cognitive function. A treatment effect trend, limited to the Stroop test, suggests that GB may have an effect on cognitive domains assessed by this test, such as susceptibility to interference and mental flexibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据