Placebo-controlled research
Which compounds have been tested against placebo—and what happened?
Human placebo comparisons exist across this library, from large stroke trials to small sleep and brain-imaging experiments. This page puts the population, study design and reported result together so you can see what each comparison actually tested.
Counts describe publications in this curated collection, not independent trials or positive results. Related reports may share participants. One monograph-reported comparison is listed separately below.
Placebo control and double blinding describe different things
Placebo-controlled
An active treatment is compared with an inactive preparation. The comparison helps separate treatment effects from expectation, natural recovery and other care. It does not tell you who knew the treatment assignment.
Double-blind
The paper reports that two relevant parties were masked to assignment. The full methods should identify who was masked and how. A double-blind study can compare two active drugs rather than drug versus inactive placebo.
Randomization is a third, separate question. It concerns how treatment assignments were generated. “Not reported” here means the material checked does not establish that feature; it does not prove the study lacked it.
A few comparisons worth opening first
Cerebrolysin: positive and neutral trials
CARS reported better arm recovery. The 1,070-person CASTA trial had a neutral primary endpoint. Both explicitly used randomized, double-blind placebo designs.
CARS → · CASTA →Semax and Selank: a brain-imaging comparison
The 52-person study included separate Semax, Selank and placebo conditions. It measured functional connectivity rather than relief of anxiety or better memory.
See the imaging study →DSIP: sleep findings differed between studies
One 14-person double-blind report found better sleep and daytime performance. Other double-blind reports found effects too small or inconsistent to support substantial short-term benefit.
Positive report → · Limited-benefit report →Bromantane: patients and rested volunteers
Single-blind neurasthenia comparisons reported symptom improvement. A separate ten-volunteer placebo study found no improvement in principal operator-performance measures.
Patient comparison → · Volunteer comparison →Compare the placebo reports
Search a compound, condition or outcome. Use the masking filter to see which reports explicitly describe double blinding.
46 of 46 journal reports
Ranquilon in anxiety associated with neurasthenia and adjustment disorder: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial
2024 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
220 adults, 110 Ranquilon and 110 placebo; 28 days of treatment.
What changed?
At day 29, 77/110 (70.0%) Ranquilon recipients achieved at least a 50% HARS anxiety-score reduction versus 27/110 (24.5%) on placebo (p<0.0001). The reported response-rate difference was 45.5 percentage points.
- Primary ≥50% HARS response
- 77/110 (70.0%) versus 27/110 (24.5%)p<0.0001
- Response-rate difference
- 45.5 percentage pointsAbsolute difference, not a 45.5% relative reduction
- HARS decrease · day 29
- 11.90 ± 4.88 versus 5.43 ± 5.03 pointsp<0.0001
Study design, methods and source notes
220 adults with neurasthenia or adjustment disorder; oral Ranquilon versus matching placebo. Not a GAD trial. NCT05586789 and the publication are the same cohort.
Reported study regimen
Ranquilon 6 mg/day orally (2 mg three times daily) or matching placebo for 28 days. Study methods, not a recommended personal regimen.
- Neurasthenia and adjustment disorders; do not relabel this as a generalized-anxiety-disorder trial.
- Valenta-funded report with sponsor-affiliated authors; 28-day efficacy and safety require longer independent follow-up.
Material checked: Original 22-page journal PDF: methods, bilingual summary and selected numerical results checked.
Original publication ↗Ranquilon dose-finding in anxiety associated with neurasthenia and adjustment disorders: phase II trial
2023 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
168 randomized: 3 mg/day n=43, 6 mg/day n=42, 9 mg/day n=41, placebo n=42; 165 completed per protocol.
What changed?
At day 29, marked or substantial clinician-rated improvement occurred in 57.1% at 6 mg/day versus 28.6% with placebo (p=0.0148). The 3 mg and 9 mg groups did not significantly outperform placebo on that primary endpoint.
- Primary CGI-I response · 6 mg/day
- 57.1% versus 28.6% placebop=0.0148
- Primary CGI-I response · 3 / 9 mg/day
- 39.5% / 43.9%Neither significantly exceeded placebo
- Analysis populations
- 168 intention-to-treat; 165 per protocol
Study design, methods and source notes
168 randomized across three active doses and matching placebo. Only the 6 mg/day arm significantly exceeded placebo on primary CGI-I response.
Reported study regimen
Oral 3, 6 or 9 mg/day, split three times daily, or matching placebo for 28 days. Study methods, not a recommended personal regimen.
- Randomized double-blind study in neurasthenia/adjustment disorders; generalized anxiety disorder was excluded.
- Sponsor-affiliated investigators; four-week findings do not establish long-term benefit.
Material checked: Publisher full-text HTML methods and results checked.
Original publication ↗Cerebrolysin and Recovery After Stroke (CARS): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial.
2016 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
Stroke patients receiving standardized rehabilitation; CARS trial
What changed?
The exploratory trial reports better upper-limb motor recovery at day 90.
- Action Research Arm Test at day 90
- Mann–Whitney estimator 0.71; 95% CI 0.63–0.79p<0.0001
- Global status across 12 outcome scales
- Mann–Whitney estimator 0.62; 95% CI 0.58–0.65p<0.0001
- Premature discontinuation
- 3.8%
Study design, methods and source notes
Saline control; standardized rehabilitation in both arms. The abstract explicitly states randomization and double blinding.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin: 30 mL once daily for 21 days, beginning 24–72 hours after stroke onset, alongside a standardized rehabilitation program. The indexed abstract does not specify the route.
- Authors call for a larger confirmatory trial. Rehabilitation and timing define the setting; this is not evidence of healthy-person enhancement.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Cerebrolysin in patients with acute ischemic stroke in Asia: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial
2012 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
CASTA: 1,070 acute ischemic-stroke patients; randomized within 12 hours; 90-day follow-up
What changed?
The combined primary outcome showed no significant benefit. A favorable signal in more severe strokes arose in post-hoc analysis.
- Combined primary outcome
- No significant between-group difference
- Severe-stroke subgroup: NIHSS outcome
- OR 1.27; lower CI bound 0.97Exploratory subgroup with baseline NIHSS>12
- Severe-stroke subgroup: mRS outcome
- OR 1.27; lower CI bound 0.90Exploratory subgroup
Study design, methods and source notes
CASTA: 529 active and 541 saline recipients. The confirmatory endpoint was neutral; the severe-stroke signal was post hoc.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin: 30 mL intravenously daily for 10 days, starting within 12 hours of stroke onset. Background treatment included aspirin 100 mg/day; the comparison used placebo.
- The severe-stroke subgroup is exploratory, not confirmation of efficacy.
- Do not count this trial again when reading meta-analyses that include CASTA.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Speech Therapy Combined With Cerebrolysin in Enhancing Nonfluent Aphasia Recovery After Acute Ischemic Stroke: ESCAS Randomized Pilot Study.
2025 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
ESCAS: 132 enrolled; 123 in intention-to-treat analysis
What changed?
In ESCAS, day-90 language improvement was 35.579 ± 16.316 points with Cerebrolysin plus speech therapy versus 20.774 ± 12.486 with placebo plus speech therapy. The between-group difference was 14.805 points (95% CI 9.521–20.089).
- Western Aphasia Battery change
- 35.579 ± 16.316 versus 20.774 ± 12.486 pointsp<0.001
- Between-group language difference
- 14.805 points; 95% CI 9.521–20.089p<0.001
- Enrollment / analysis
- 132 enrolled; 123 intention-to-treat; 120 per protocol
Study design, methods and source notes
ESCAS: placebo plus speech therapy in controls; Cerebrolysin plus the same therapy in the active arm.
- Pilot trial in a selected nonfluent-aphasia population; generalizability is limited.
- Difference between enrolled and analyzed populations requires full-methods review.
- Full methods and risk of bias have not been independently assessed.
Material checked: Primary indexed abstract checked
Original publication ↗Cerebrolysin combined with rehabilitation promotes motor recovery in patients with severe motor impairment after stroke.
2016 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
70 subacute stroke patients randomized 35 per group
What changed?
Among 70 stroke patients, overall motor recovery did not differ significantly between Cerebrolysin and placebo. A severe-impairment subgroup favored Cerebrolysin. Imaging findings were also reported.
- Overall motor recovery
- No significant between-group difference
- Severe motor-impairment subgroup
- Greater improvement with Cerebrolysinp<0.05
- Randomized participants
- 35 Cerebrolysin; 35 placebo
Study design, methods and source notes
70 participants, 35 per arm. Overall motor recovery did not differ; the favorable result concerned the severe-impairment subgroup.
- Subgroup findings should not replace the overall result or be generalized to all stroke patients.
Material checked: Primary indexed abstract checked
Original publication ↗[Effect of cerebrolysin on remyelination processes in multiple sclerosis patients in stage of relapse regression].
2016 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
40 patients during regression of a multiple-sclerosis relapse after steroid treatment
What changed?
No between-group EDSS difference was reported; selected functional and neurophysiological measures differed.
- Completed treatment
- 17/20 (85%) versus 18/20 (90%)
- Baseline age
- 27.35 (5.65) versus 26.65 (4.93) years
- Baseline disease duration
- 29.9 (11.01) versus 30.25 (11.98) months
Study design, methods and source notes
40 MS-relapse patients randomized to Cerebrolysin or saline after steroids. Masking not established by the abstract; no EDSS difference.
Reported study regimen
After methylprednisolone 1,000 mg/day for five days, the study used Cerebrolysin 20 mL in 200 mL saline once daily for ten administrations, compared with saline. This was sequential adjunctive treatment during recovery from an MS relapse.
- Short follow-up, attrition and a very small MRI subset limit interpretation. Surrogate changes do not establish remyelination.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Efficacy and safety of cerebrolysin in neurorecovery after moderate-severe traumatic brain injury: results from the CAPTAIN II trial.
2020 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
142 enrolled; 139 analyzed after moderate–severe traumatic brain injury
What changed?
CAPTAIN II enrolled 142 patients and analyzed 139. The day-90 composite favored Cerebrolysin: MW 0.59 (95% CI 0.52–0.66; p=0.0119).
- Day-90 primary composite
- MW 0.59; 95% CI 0.52–0.66p=0.0119
- Enrollment / analysis
- 142 enrolled; 139 analyzed
Study design, methods and source notes
CAPTAIN II: 142 enrolled, 139 analyzed. Composite endpoint at day 90; secondary analyses reuse the same cohort.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin: 50 mL/day for ten days, followed by two further ten-day cycles at 10 mL/day. The indexed abstract does not specify the intervals between cycles.
- Single-center trial; a composite benefit does not establish benefit on every outcome. Secondary CAPTAIN reports reuse this cohort.
Material checked: Primary indexed abstract checked
Original publication ↗Cerebrolysin enhances cognitive recovery of mild traumatic brain injury patients: double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study
2013 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
32 patients with mild traumatic brain injury; all completed.
What changed?
At 12 weeks, CASI cognitive-score improvement was 21.0 ± 20.4 points with Cerebrolysin versus 7.6 ± 12.1 with saline placebo (p=0.0461).
- CASI change from baseline
- 21.0 ± 20.4 versus 7.6 ± 12.1 pointsp=0.0461
- Drawing and long-term memory
- Selected domain differences favored Cerebrolysin
Study design, methods and source notes
Primary publication explicitly describes randomization, double blinding and an inactive placebo arm.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin 30 mL intravenously daily over 60 minutes for five days; matched saline administration in controls. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- Small phase II pilot with several cognitive tests and timepoints. This does not establish benefit across all brain injuries.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗Add-on treatment with Cerebrolysin improves clinical symptoms in patients with ALS: results from a prospective, single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, phase II study
2023 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
20 patients with ALS, randomized 1:1; riluzole in both groups.
What changed?
At one month, ALSFRS-R improved 2.3 points with add-on Cerebrolysin while declining 0.9 points with placebo (p=0.005).
- ALSFRS-R change
- +2.3 versus −0.9 pointsp=0.005
- Study duration
- 3 monthsBenefit reported as maintained; no survival estimate in abstract
Study design, methods and source notes
Primary publication explicitly describes randomization, double blinding and an inactive placebo arm.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin 10 mL intravenously five days/week in month one and three days/week in months two and three; riluzole 50 mg twice daily in both groups. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- Single-center phase II pilot, ten patients per arm; short functional findings do not establish survival benefit.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗Safety and efficacy of Cerebrolysin in acute brain injury and neurorecovery: CAPTAIN I-a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, Asian-Pacific trial
2020 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
CAPTAIN I: 46 traumatic-brain-injury patients, Cerebrolysin 22 and saline 24.
What changed?
The primary intention-to-treat composite did not reach conventional statistical significance: MW 0.63 (95% CI 0.48–0.77). Per-protocol analysis favored Cerebrolysin (p=0.0240), as did selected cognitive tests.
- Primary intention-to-treat composite
- MW 0.63 (95% CI 0.48–0.77)Not statistically significant at 0.05; abstract reports p<0.1
- Per-protocol composite
- MW 0.69 (95% CI 0.53–0.85)p=0.0240
- Selected cognitive outcomes
- Stroop p=0.0415; Color Trails 1 p=0.0223; Color Trails 2 p=0.0170
Study design, methods and source notes
Primary publication explicitly describes randomization, double blinding and an inactive placebo arm.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin 50 mL/day intravenously for 10 days, then two additional ten-day cycles at 10 mL/day; matched saline plus standard care. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- Primary and per-protocol findings differ; selected positive tests are not a positive primary intention-to-treat result.
- Small exploratory trial; CAPTAIN pooled and follow-up papers should not be counted as new participants.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial about safety and efficacy of combined treatment with alteplase (rt-PA) and Cerebrolysin in acute ischaemic hemispheric stroke
2013 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
119 acute ischemic-stroke patients treated with alteplase.
What changed?
The trial stopped after an interim analysis found no day-90 modified Rankin Scale benefit. Early neurological responder analyses favored Cerebrolysin at days 2, 5, 10 and 30.
- Day-90 modified Rankin Scale
- No benefit; trial stopped at third interim analysis
- Early NIHSS responder analysis
- Favored Cerebrolysin at days 2, 5, 10 and 30Secondary endpoint; response ≥6-point improvement or total score 0–1
- Adverse events
- No between-group difference reported
Study design, methods and source notes
Primary publication explicitly describes randomization, double blinding and an inactive placebo arm.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin 30 mL/day intravenously for 10 days versus placebo, starting one hour after alteplase; acute enrollment within three hours of symptom onset. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- The primary disability endpoint was neutral; early secondary responder findings do not establish a day-90 benefit.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of Cerebrolysin for Alzheimer's disease
2000 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
53 patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease: 34 Cerebrolysin, 19 placebo.
What changed?
After four weeks, ADAS-Cog improvement was reported in 82% with Cerebrolysin versus 31.6% with placebo. Global and MMSE ratings also favored treatment; daily-living scales did not.
- ADAS-Cog improvement
- 82% versus 31.6%p=0.02 for the ADAS-Cog comparison
- Global improvement
- 62% versus 22%p=0.01
- MMSE improvement
- 44% versus 17%p=0.04
Study design, methods and source notes
Primary publication explicitly describes randomization, double blinding and an inactive placebo arm.
Reported study regimen
Cerebrolysin 30 mL intravenously Monday–Friday for four weeks versus placebo. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- Short trial; improved cognitive ratings did not translate into demonstrated ADL or IADL benefit.
- Rounded response percentages are retained as reported rather than converted to participant counts.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗Clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomic characteristics of the neuroprotection with low doses of cortexin in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke
2014 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
ESCORT; 272 acute ischemic-stroke patients
What changed?
Double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of repeated Cortexin, one course followed by placebo, and placebo. Authors reported functional and pharmacoeconomic benefits.
- Best reported treatment sequence
- Two Cortexin coursesExact scale scores and arm-level results absent from abstract
Study design, methods and source notes
ESCORT: 272 participants, two Cortexin courses, one course then placebo, or two placebo courses. Random allocation is not specified in the checked abstract.
- Read alongside the independent 2023 Cochrane assessment; favorable scales do not establish mortality benefit.
- Related ESCORT publications describe the same trial and must not be counted as independent replications.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗New possibilities of neuroprotection in the treatment of ischemic stroke
2008 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
62 acute hemispheric ischemic-stroke patients; 32 Cortexin and 30 placebo; treatment started within six hours
What changed?
The double-blind multicenter report described improvement in neurological and functional scales compared with placebo.
- Neurological and functional scales
- Authors report favorable outcomesNIHSS, mRS and Barthel measured; numerical scores and effect sizes absent from the abstract
Study design, methods and source notes
62 acute-stroke patients: Cortexin 32 and placebo 30. Double blinding is explicit; random allocation is not stated in the checked abstract.
Reported study regimen
Cortexin: 20 mg intramuscularly daily for 10 days, beginning within the first six hours of stroke onset, alongside stroke care.
- Small trial; random sequence generation is not established by the abstract.
- No numerical treatment effect or adequate assessment of uncommon harms is available in the abstract.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗ARTEMIDA Trial (A Randomized Trial of Efficacy, 12 Months International Double-Blind Actovegin): A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Actovegin in Poststroke Cognitive Impairment.
2017 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
503 patients aged 60 or older after ischemic stroke; ARTEMIDA
What changed?
The trial reported a cognitive-scale benefit at six months. Recurrent ischemic stroke was numerically more frequent with Actovegin, without a statistically significant difference.
- ADAS-cog+ change at month 6
- −6.8 Actovegin versus −4.6 placebo
- Estimated treatment difference
- −2.3 points; 95% CI −3.9 to −0.7p=0.005
- Recurrent ischemic stroke
- More frequent with Actovegin, not statistically significantEvent counts absent from abstract
Study design, methods and source notes
ARTEMIDA: 503 randomized; cognitive-scale benefit, with numerically more recurrent ischemic strokes in the active group.
Reported study regimen
Actovegin: 2,000 mg/day for up to 20 intravenous infusions, followed by 1,200 mg/day orally, for six months of treatment in total. Treatment began within one week of ischemic stroke.
- Clinical importance and replication remain unresolved. The safety imbalance cannot establish causation or be dismissed as proof of safety. Disease-specific results do not establish healthy-person enhancement.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Treatment of symptomatic polyneuropathy with actovegin in type 2 diabetic patients.
2009 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
567 treated participants with type 2 diabetes and symptomatic polyneuropathy
What changed?
Neuropathic symptoms improved versus placebo. The vibration-threshold coprimary analysis over time did not reach statistical significance, although the final-visit comparison did.
- TSS exposure-adjusted difference
- −0.56 points; 95% CI −0.85 to −0.27p=0.0003
- TSS baseline-to-day-160 difference
- −0.86 points; 95% CI −1.22 to −0.50p<0.0001
- Vibration threshold, exposure-adjusted
- 3% decrease; 95% CI 0–6%p=0.084
Study design, methods and source notes
567 treated participants. Symptoms favored Actovegin; the vibration-threshold analysis over time was not significant.
Reported study regimen
Actovegin: 20 intravenous infusions at 2,000 mg/day, followed by oral treatment at 1,800 mg/day for 140 days in diabetic polyneuropathy.
- Endpoint timing matters; these findings do not establish general nerve regeneration or benefit in healthy people. No difference in adverse-event incidence was reported during this trial.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Ladasten in neurasthenia and somatogenic asthenia: safety and therapeutic efficacy
2009 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Single-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
40 patients: 20 per diagnosis, randomized within diagnosis to active treatment or placebo (10 per cell)
What changed?
Single-blind, stratified randomized comparison reported symptom improvement over 28 days. Mild restlessness during treatment and transient dizziness after withdrawal were reported.
- Symptom improvement
- Reported over 28 daysNumerical table values were not transcribed in the prior review
- Harms described
- Mild restlessness during treatment; transient dizziness after withdrawalEvent denominators not supplied in the checked narrative
Study design, methods and source notes
Original methods: 40 patients stratified by diagnosis, 10 per treatment-by-diagnosis cell. Single-blind; distinct from the 30-patient report.
- Four small groups; multiple symptom outcomes.
- Seven-day post-treatment observation cannot establish long-term dependence or safety.
- Overlap with other 2009 Ladasten reports remains unresolved; do not sum cohorts.
Material checked: Previously reviewed publisher methods and harms narrative; numerical image tables not newly extracted
Original publication ↗Ladasten, the new drug with psychostimulant and anxiolytic actions in treatment of neurasthenia (results of the comparative clinical study with placebo)]
2009 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Single-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
30 patients with neurasthenia; 15 per arm
What changed?
Single-blind randomized placebo comparison reported symptom improvement. All active-treatment patients completed; only seven placebo participants completed. Missing values were handled using last observation carried forward.
- Treatment completion
- 15/15 active group versus 7/15 placebo group
- Missing-outcome handling
- Last observation carried forwardDifferential dropout may distort symptom comparisons
Study design, methods and source notes
Original report: 30 randomized, 15 per arm; only seven placebo participants completed. Single-blind; attrition affects interpretation.
- Differential attrition and last-observation-carried-forward analysis can bias estimates.
- Small single-blind comparison with 28-day treatment and one-week follow-up.
- No long-term absence-of-dependence conclusion follows.
- Overlap with related 2009 reports remains unresolved.
Material checked: Previously reviewed journal reproduction; allocation, completion and missing-data methods
Original publication ↗- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
10 healthy volunteers
What changed?
The placebo comparison reported EEG and tremor changes, but no change in subjective state or principal operator-performance measures in rested participants.
- Principal operator performance
- No improvement detected
- Subjective state
- No change detected
- EEG and tremor
- Changes reportedNo numerical EEG/tremor effect size or dose in the indexed abstract
Study design, methods and source notes
Ten rested volunteers compared Bromantane with placebo. EEG and tremor changed; operator performance did not. Masking and allocation are not established.
- Very small sample and single administration.
- Randomization and allocation details were not established from the abstract.
- The proposed relevance to fatigued operators was not demonstrated by this rested-volunteer comparison.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Efficiency of preventive use of bemethyl during long-term voyages
1991 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
298 maritime operators aged 19–38: 148 Bemitil, 150 placebo controls; detailed laboratory and performance tests in a 20-person subset
What changed?
The 298-person voyage comparison reported fewer complaints and better performance measures with Bemitil. Detailed immune and performance measurements were made in a 20-person subset. The paper also reports laboratory changes, adverse reactions and follow-up 30 days after treatment stopped.
- Fatigue, poor mood, headache and insomnia complaints
- 20% lower frequencyAuthors’ reported change in treated sailors; absolute complaint counts are not given
- Simple sensorimotor reaction
- 6.7% shorter latencyReported change in treated sailors
- Complex sensorimotor reaction
- Errors reduced twofoldReported change in treated sailors; raw error totals not printed
Study design, methods and source notes
Original scan: 148 Bemitil and 150 placebo controls; detailed tests in a 20-person subset. The inspected methods do not establish randomization or double blinding.
Reported study regimen
250–500 mg/day for 14 days, beginning after one month at sea. Placebo controls. Measurements before, during and after voyages, including 30 days after treatment stopped. Route not explicitly stated in the inspected Russian methods.
- Randomization and blinding procedures are not described. The 20-person testing subset is not broken down by treatment arm.
- The overall morbidity figures, 18.3% and 81.7%, lack underlying counts and an unambiguous denominator; they cannot be treated as individual illness risks.
- The narrative reports an 18% increase in phagocytosis intensity while a separate degree-of-reaction endpoint is unchanged; distinct measures must not be combined.
Material checked: Recovered original journal scan, printed pages 37–39; Tables 1–2 and results visually checked
Original publication ↗- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
Human report; see summary and review scope
What changed?
A 66-person placebo comparison of recurrent erysipelas reported faster clinical recovery and discharge with adjunctive Bemitil, without supplying days-to-recovery or response counts.
- Clinical recovery and discharge
- Reported earlier resolution of intoxication/local signs and earlier hospital dischargeNo numerical time difference in abstract
- Participants
- 66 overall; arm sizes not given
- Studied regimen
- 0.25–0.5 g/day orally for 5–7 days
Study design, methods and source notes
Indexed abstract explicitly describes Bemitil or placebo alongside conventional care in 66 recurrent-erysipelas patients.
- Full text and detailed methods have not been independently assessed.
- Allocation, masking, group details and numerical outcomes require full-text appraisal; findings do not establish benefit in healthy users.
- Possible overlap between these 1991 erysipelas reports remains unresolved; do not count them as independent replication.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Experimental rationale for the use of drugs to increase the resistance of the human body to the combined action of carbon monoxide and hyperthermia]
1993 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
Volunteers exposed to a combined heat and gas model; enrollment not given
What changed?
Compared placebo, Bemitil, Bromantane and their combination. The abstract favors Bromantane-containing groups under the experimental exposure.
- Bemitil arm
- 0.5 g
- Bromantane arm
- 0.25 g
- Combination arm
- Bemitil 0.5 g + Bromantane 0.25 g
Study design, methods and source notes
Human heat/gas experiment compares placebo, Bemitil, Bromantane and the combination. Indexed title and abstract conflict on gas identity; original methods remain necessary.
Reported study regimen
Experimental exposure comparison: Bemitil 0.5 g, bromantane 0.25 g, their combination, or placebo. The indexed abstract does not specify a route or repeat-dose schedule. These experimental conditions do not establish protection during real-world hazardous work.
- The title identifies carbon monoxide, while the English abstract says carbon dioxide: the original Russian methods are needed to resolve this inconsistency.
- Randomization, blinding and effect sizes are not established by the abstract.
- Not evidence that toxic or heat exposure is safe, or a substitute for exposure controls.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Possibilities of the pharmacological correction of adaptive reactions of human organism in short-term moving from middle to high altitude]
2014 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
Volunteers moving from 1,670 m to 3,750 m after 15 days at middle altitude
What changed?
An altitude-adaptation comparison reported earlier metabolic adaptation with combined Metaprot and Ladasten than with Hypoxen or placebo. The abstract does not quantify the work-capacity improvement.
- Adaptation timing
- Combination: within first hours; Hypoxen: by day 3; placebo: still developing on day 3Authors’ descriptive metabolic time course, not a timed endurance effect
- Exercise tolerance and blood-cell measures
- Reported stronger responses with the combinationNo absolute work or blood-cell effect sizes supplied
- Studied arms
- Metaprot 0.125 g + Ladasten 0.1 g; Hypoxen 0.5 g; placeboCombination effect cannot be assigned to either component alone
Study design, methods and source notes
Metaprot–Ladasten combination, Hypoxen and placebo during short-term altitude transfer. A combination result does not isolate either component.
- No single-component arms are described, so the study cannot isolate contributions or establish synergy.
- Enrollment and allocation details require full-text review.
- Not a validated altitude-illness prevention strategy.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Effects of delta-sleep-inducing peptide on 24-hour sleep-wake behaviour in severe chronic insomnia.
1987 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
14 middle-aged patients with chronic insomnia
What changed?
A 14-person placebo-controlled insomnia report described improved sleep and daytime performance over seven nights of DSIP, without giving numerical sleep or performance effect sizes in its abstract.
- Sleep and daytime performance
- Reported improvements; numerical changes not suppliedSleep effects reportedly persisted on the first placebo post-treatment night
- Participants
- 14 chronic-insomnia patients
- Observation schedule
- 7 successive treatment nights; daytime testing before and after 6 injections
Study design, methods and source notes
14 chronic-insomnia patients; abstract explicitly describes placebo-controlled double-blind conditions over seven nights.
- Small sample and short follow-up; allocation and complete methods require appraisal.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Study of delta sleep-inducing peptide efficacy in improving sleep on short-term administration to chronic insomniacs.
1987 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
Patients with chronic insomnia; double-blind crossover
What changed?
A double-blind crossover study found little clinically significant sleep improvement with DSIP; some nominal sleep-stage differences were already present at baseline.
- Awakenings and wake time
- Decreased during DSIP, without significant baseline or placebo differencesAlso applies to NREM latency and waking after sleep onset
- NREM and stage 2 sleep
- Nominal differences versus placebo, with the same differences already present at baseline
- Slow-wave and REM sleep
- Not modified
Study design, methods and source notes
Double-blind crossover. Sleep differences were small and partly present at baseline; random treatment order is not stated in the abstract.
- Baseline differences complicate interpretation; sample size is not provided in the indexed abstract.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Effects of delta sleep-inducing peptide on sleep of chronic insomniac patients. A double-blind study.
1992 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
16 patients; double-blind matched-pairs parallel groups
What changed?
In 16 chronic-insomnia patients, DSIP produced weak objective sleep differences and no consistent subjective sleep benefit; the authors found little likely therapeutic value.
- Objective sleep
- Higher efficiency and shorter latency, described as weak effectsAuthors note possible contribution from incidental placebo-group changes
- Subjective sleep quality
- No changeNo numerical sleep-minute difference in the abstract
- Participants
- 8 DSIP; 8 placebo
Study design, methods and source notes
16 patients in matched-pair parallel groups; glucose placebo. Matching is not proof of random allocation.
- Small, brief study; selected statistically significant endpoints do not establish a meaningful overall benefit.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Acute and delayed effects of DSIP (delta sleep-inducing peptide) on human sleep behavior
1981 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
6 healthy volunteers: 4 men and 2 women.
What changed?
In a double-blind crossover experiment, median total sleep time during the 130-minute post-infusion interval was 59% higher with DSIP than placebo. This was an acute sleep experiment in six healthy volunteers.
- Median total sleep time
- 59% higher than placebo
- Participants
- 6 healthy volunteers
Study design, methods and source notes
Six-person placebo crossover; the abstract explicitly states double blinding but not random sequence allocation.
Reported study regimen
Slow morning intravenous DSIP infusion, 25 nmol/kg, versus placebo. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- No absolute sleep-duration values or confidence interval are provided in the abstract.
- A six-person experiment cannot establish long-term insomnia treatment effects.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗Delta sleep-inducing peptide administration does not influence growth hormone and prolactin secretion in normal women
1993 · Biomarkers / imaging
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
8 healthy women overall; only 3 entered the DSIP-versus-placebo circadian comparison.
What changed?
DSIP did not change spontaneous or arginine-stimulated growth hormone or prolactin secretion. The placebo-comparison subset comprised three women.
- Growth hormone and prolactin
- No change in secretion or circadian rhythm
- Placebo-comparison subset
- 3 women8 women participated across all experiments
Study design, methods and source notes
Eight women overall; only three took part in the circadian placebo comparison. No hormone secretion benefit.
Reported study regimen
In the three-woman circadian comparison, DSIP 25 micrograms/kg intravenously from 21:30 to 22:30 versus placebo infusion. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- Five other women underwent arginine challenge conditions; eight is not the placebo-comparison sample size.
- Randomization and masking are not stated in the abstract.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗Normalizing effect of the pineal gland peptides on the daily melatonin rhythm in old monkeys and elderly people
2007 · Biomarkers / imaging
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
40 older intervention participants: 15 Epitalon, 15 Epithalamin and 10 saline; 10 young references. Baseline survey separately included 49 older and 15 younger people.
What changed?
In older adults with low baseline melatonin, Epitalon increased 03:00 plasma melatonin from 20 ± 4 to 49 ± 7 pg/mL; saline changed from 27 ± 4 to 25 ± 4. Evening melatonin also rose, while daytime concentrations did not change significantly.
- 03:00 melatonin · low-baseline subgroup
- 20 ± 4 → 49 ± 7 pg/mLp<0.05 versus baseline and post-treatment salineEpitalon n=12; saline n=8: 27 ± 4 → 25 ± 4 pg/mL
- 21:00 melatonin
- 12 ± 3 → 25 ± 4 pg/mLp<0.05 versus baseline and post-treatment salineSaline: 12 ± 3 → 11 ± 3 pg/mL
- Preserved baseline pineal function
- No melatonin change in 3 Epitalon recipients
Study design, methods and source notes
Original Russian methods describe randomized older-adult groups and saline control. Masking is not described. Hormone endpoints, not lifespan.
Reported study regimen
Epitalon 0.01 mg intramuscularly daily for 10 days (0.1 mg total); saline 2 mL daily for 10 days. A separate Epithalamin arm received 10 mg every third day for five injections. Historical study methods, not personal-use instructions.
- The Epitalon low-melatonin comparison contains 12 treated and 8 saline recipients; the three Epitalon recipients with preserved function showed no change.
- These are hormone measurements, not demonstrated sleep improvement or lifespan extension. Human and monkey results are separate.
Material checked: Original Russian methods and Table 7, printed pages 75–76 and 79, checked; table visually verified.
Original publication ↗AEDG Peptide Regulates the Expression of Circadian Genes Clock, Cry2, Csnk1e in Human Immune Cells
2021 · Biomarkers / imaging
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
75 night-shift women ages 40–59: 35 normal-melatonin references; 40 with reduced function randomly divided between AEDG and placebo.
What changed?
After 20 days of sublingual AEDG, Cry2 expression doubled from baseline and was 1.2-fold higher than placebo. Csnk1e expression fell 2.1-fold from baseline and was 1.8-fold lower than placebo; all reported comparisons p<0.05.
- Participants
- 75 women; 40 entered treatment/placebo comparison35 normal-melatonin references
- Cry2 expression
- 2-fold higher than baseline; 1.2-fold higher than placebop<0.05
- Csnk1e expression
- 2.1-fold lower than baseline; 1.8-fold lower than placebop<0.05
Study design, methods and source notes
Forty low-melatonin night-shift women were randomly divided between sublingual AEDG and saline; 35 normal-melatonin references. Related Ivko reports may share participants.
Reported study regimen
Sublingual AEDG solution-spray, 0.5 mg/day for 20 days, versus sublingual 0.9% saline on the same schedule. Historical study methods, not a recommended regimen.
- Peripheral blood gene-expression markers are not clinical sleep or longevity outcomes.
- This is a related report to Ivko 2020 and its 2021 English translation; cohort overlap is unresolved, so these reports are grouped rather than counted as independent replication.
Material checked: Original three-page English article checked; methods and numerical results on pages 189–191.
Original publication ↗- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
24 healthy volunteers: 14 Semax, 10 placebo
What changed?
Resting-state imaging detected a difference in a frontal default-mode-network component.
- Resting-state fMRI timing
- Before treatment, then 5 and 20 minutes afterward
- Default-mode network rostral subcomponent
- Greater volume reported with SemaxNo numerical volume difference; imaging rather than cognitive performance
Study design, methods and source notes
14 Semax and 10 placebo recipients underwent fMRI. Randomization and blinding are not specified in the abstract; no cognitive benefit was tested.
- Small imaging experiment; connectivity is not a validated memory or attention benefit.
- Cohort independence from later work by the same group has not been established.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Functional Connectomic Approach to Studying Selank and Semax Effects
2020 · Biomarkers / imaging
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
52 healthy participants; separate Semax, Selank and placebo conditions
What changed?
A 52-person fMRI study found drug-related differences in amygdala–temporal connectivity after Semax, Selank or placebo; it did not quantify improved anxiety or cognition.
- Functional connectivity
- Between-group and between-condition differences involving right amygdala and right temporal regionsBrain-imaging finding; no clinical symptom response rates
- Participants
- 52 across Semax, Selank and placeboArm counts not supplied in indexed abstract
- Assessment schedule
- Baseline; 5 and 20 minutes
Study design, methods and source notes
52 participants across separate Semax, Selank and placebo conditions. This is an imaging study, not a Semax–Selank blend trial; cohort overlap with the earlier study is unresolved.
- This compares separate interventions; it is not a Semax-plus-Selank combination trial.
- No demonstrated cognitive-performance gain follows from the imaging endpoint.
- Potential overlap with earlier imaging publications remains to be checked.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Efficacy of non-hormonal therapy in women with climacteric syndrome
2021 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
94 postmenopausal women: Pineamin 46, placebo 48
What changed?
At day 90, Greene menopausal-symptom scores were 16.16 ± 8.36 with Pineamin versus 21.62 ± 9.34 with placebo (p=0.004), from baseline scores of 30.43 and 31.60. Diary-reported sleep onset also favored Pineamin (p=0.023).
- Greene total score · day 90
- 16.16 ± 8.36 versus 21.62 ± 9.34p=0.004
- Greene total score · day 180
- 18.24 ± 8.68 versus 21.81 ± 11.41p=0.035
- Sleep-onset diary measure
- Favored Pineaminp=0.023
Study design, methods and source notes
Publisher full-text methods explicitly describe a randomized double-blind placebo trial: 46 Pineamin and 48 placebo recipients.
Reported study regimen
Pineamin: 10 mg intramuscularly during a ten-day treatment course, compared with placebo in postmenopausal women. The methods passage reviewed gives the dose and course length but does not explicitly state the within-day frequency.
- Sleep measures concern menopause-associated symptoms, not a general insomnia population or polysomnographic sleep architecture.
- The report evaluates several outcomes; statistical significance does not establish the size or durability of each benefit.
Material checked: Original publisher HTML, Table 1 and reported sleep outcomes
Original publication ↗Recent tendencies in the prevention and treatment of menopausal syndrome
2016 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
120 postmenopausal women aged 45–60; placebo 30, one-course group 30, two-course group 60
What changed?
At 90 days, the trial reported a symptom-category response in 59.1% of Pineamin recipients versus 36.7% with placebo.
- Modified Kupperman response
- 52/88 (59.1%) versus 11/30 (36.7%)OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.06–5.87; p=0.037Pooled active courses versus placebo; efficacy population
- Two-course response
- 37/58 (63.8%) versus 12/30 (40.0%)OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.01–6.13; pairwise p=0.04Two courses versus placebo; efficacy population
- One-course response
- 19/30 (63.3%) versus 12/30 (40.0%)OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.91–7.34; table reports omnibus p=0.08One course versus placebo; efficacy population
Study design, methods and source notes
120-woman placebo trial; related 2015/2016 reports may describe one cohort. 101 completed the per-protocol population.
- The paper has reporting inconsistencies: abstract versus main-text per-protocol totals, a 56% placebo response in the narrative versus 8/24 (33%) in Table 5, and printed odds ratios requiring reconstruction. Keep these populations separate. The 2015/2016 reports may describe the same cohort.
- Twenty-two adverse events are reported; short follow-up cannot establish long-term safety.
Material checked: Original publisher PDF text, printed pages 10–12: response tables and reporting discrepancies checked; complete visual table appraisal remains open
Original publication ↗Drug therapy and memory training programs: a double-blind randomized trial of general practice patients with age-associated memory impairment
1994 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
162 adults aged 55 or older with age-associated memory impairment; 54 per arm; 135 completed
What changed?
Three-month randomized, double-blind trial compared two piracetam groups with placebo alongside memory training. Reported benefits depended on baseline performance and training timing.
- Completed study
- 135 overall; 45 per arm
- Non-completion
- 27 overallCalculated from 162 enrolled minus 135 completed
- Best reported combination
- 4.8 g and training beginning after six weeksNo numerical memory-score effect size in abstract
Study design, methods and source notes
162 randomized, 54 per arm; 135 completed. Two active-dose groups versus placebo, with memory training; benefit depended on training and baseline performance.
- Memory training is a co-intervention; this is not a drug-only comparison.
- 27 participants did not complete; reasons and handling require full text.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Effect of piracetam on recovery and rehabilitation after stroke: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study
1994 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
158 post-stroke rehabilitation patients; 137 assessed after treatment and 88 at 24 weeks
What changed?
The 158-patient rehabilitation trial found a favorable aphasia analysis at 12 weeks (p=0.02), but no demonstrated daily-living benefit. Only 88 patients were available at 24 weeks, leaving persistence uncertain.
- Aachen Aphasia Test multivariate comparison
- Favored piracetam at 12 weeksp=0.02
- Activities of daily living
- No demonstrated treatment effect
- Follow-up availability
- 158 enrolled; 137 after treatment; 88 at week 24
Study design, methods and source notes
158 enrolled; 137 assessed after treatment, 88 at follow-up. Aphasia signal without demonstrated daily-living benefit.
- Substantial loss to later follow-up limits interpretation.
- Aphasia findings require confirmation and do not establish healthy-person cognitive enhancement.
Material checked: Primary indexed abstract checked
Original publication ↗Quantitative EEG and neuropsychological effects of piracetam and of the association piracetam-lecithin in healthy volunteers
1985 · Biomarkers / imaging
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
Healthy volunteers in placebo-controlled single-dose experiments
What changed?
EEG changes were observed, but the tested neuropsychological measures did not improve. Electrophysiological activity is not synonymous with better cognition.
- EEG changes
- Increased power in 8.5–12 Hz and faster componentsLower-frequency power decreased
- Neuropsychological variables
- No benefit detected on the tested measures
Study design, methods and source notes
Placebo comparison explicit; masking and randomization not stated in abstract. EEG changes did not accompany better neuropsychological performance.
Reported study regimen
Single oral piracetam doses of 800–6,400 mg were studied in healthy volunteers. A separate combination comparison used piracetam 4,800 mg with lecithin 25 g. These were experimental single-dose comparisons, not a daily treatment schedule.
- Acute exposure cannot settle questions about repeated use.
- Individual variability and statistical methodology affected EEG interpretation.
Material checked: Previously retrieved indexed abstract; numerical statements checked against the saved source text
Original publication ↗Piracetam-induced improvement of mental performance: a controlled study on normally aging individuals
1976 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
18 aging, non-deteriorated participants
What changed?
An 18-person double-blind crossover report found better performance on most tested tasks during piracetam than placebo, without numerical task-score changes in its abstract.
- Perceptual-motor tasks
- Significantly better performance on most tasksNo task-by-task scores or exact p values supplied
- Participants
- 18 older adults
- Treatment periods
- Two 4-week crossover periods
Study design, methods and source notes
18 older volunteers in double-blind within-person placebo crossover; random sequence not reported in the abstract.
- Small historical study.
- Full endpoint results, sequence effects and washout require original-paper appraisal.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Single-dose piracetam effects on global complexity measures of human spontaneous multichannel EEG
1999 · Biomarkers / imaging
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
12 healthy volunteers
What changed?
A 12-person experiment found dose-related resting EEG changes after piracetam; these were physiological measurements, not demonstrated cognitive improvement.
- EEG complexity
- Both complexity measures decreased versus placebo at 2.4 g; dimensional complexity returned toward placebo at 9.6 gNo numerical complexity difference in abstract
- Participants
- 12 healthy volunteers
- Studied doses
- 2.4, 4.8 and 9.6 g; placebo comparator
Study design, methods and source notes
12 volunteers; three piracetam doses and placebo. EEG complexity, not clinical or operational performance.
- Very small sample; surrogate electrical endpoint.
- Full methods and authorship metadata require complete-paper appraisal.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗[Peptide geroprotector application for treatment of elderly and senile patients with prostatic hyperplasia].
2013 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Blinded · level unspecified
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
Men aged 62–83 with benign prostatic hyperplasia; sample size absent from abstract
What changed?
A blinded placebo-controlled Chitomur report in older men described improved urinary measures and quality of life, sustained for one month after treatment; its abstract gives no numerical treatment effect.
- Urinary function and quality of life
- Reported improvement, maintained during the month after treatmentNo flow-rate, symptom-score or between-group effect size supplied
- Adverse effects
- None reportedNo numerical safety denominator
- Post-treatment follow-up
- 1 month
Study design, methods and source notes
The indexed abstract says blind, randomized and placebo-controlled; it does not specify double blinding or a sample size.
- Full group sizes, effect estimates and adverse-event ascertainment are unavailable in the abstract; prostate disease reversal is not established.
- Full methods, reporting completeness and independent replication remain to be appraised.
Material checked: Primary-publication indexed abstract; no full-text table appraisal
Original publication ↗Application thymogen for preoperative preparation of elderly patients with tumor processes in abdominal cavity
2011 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
Older adults undergoing abdominal or retroperitoneal solid-tumor surgery; sample size not supplied by the abstract.
What changed?
A randomized, double-blind saline-placebo comparison reported fewer postoperative complications and a shorter postoperative period after preoperative Thymogen. The abstract provides no event counts or effect sizes.
- Postoperative complications and recovery
- Fewer complications and shorter postoperative period reportedNo absolute counts or duration estimates in the abstract
- Preoperative treatment period
- 7 daysIntranasal Thymogen versus isotonic saline; dose unit requires original-paper verification
Study design, methods and source notes
Primary abstract explicitly describes double-blind randomized saline-placebo preoperative treatment. Numerical complication results and enrollment are not supplied.
- The abstract prints an intranasal dose of 100 mg, an unresolved unit discrepancy; dose is not transcribed as a verified regimen.
- This is perioperative adjunctive research, not evidence of cancer treatment or routine prevention in healthy people.
Material checked: Indexed abstract
Original publication ↗Peptide Drug Thymalin Regulates Immune Status in Severe COVID-19 Older Patients
2021 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Single-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
80 severe COVID-19 patients: 36 Thymalin and 44 saline plus standard care.
What changed?
In-hospital mortality was 7/36 (19.4%) with Thymalin versus 18/44 (40.9%) with saline placebo (p=0.039). Clinical improvement was 29/36 (80.5%) versus 26/44 (59%; p=0.039).
- In-hospital mortality
- 7/36 (19.4%) versus 18/44 (40.9%)p=0.039
- Clinical improvement
- 29/36 (80.5%) versus 26/44 (59%)p=0.039
- Time to clinical improvement
- 8.63 ± 0.68 versus 7.61 ± 0.93 daysp=0.41
Study design, methods and source notes
Full text calls this a single-blind trial: standard care plus saline 44 versus standard care plus Thymalin 36.
Reported study regimen
Thymalin 10 mg intramuscularly daily for 10 days versus 2 mL saline, both alongside standard care. Historical study methods, not treatment advice.
- Single-center, single-blind study using early-pandemic care; findings require confirmation under contemporary treatment.
- CT improvement and time to clinical improvement did not differ significantly.
Material checked: Original full-text Table 3
Original publication ↗The efficacy of add-on treatment with phenotropil in adult patients with locally-induced epilepsy
2014 · Clinical outcomes
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Double-blind
- Randomization
- Reported
Participants
90 adults with resistant focal epilepsy; three groups of 30, adjunctive to unchanged antiepileptic therapy
What changed?
The paper reports at least 50% seizure reduction in 83% and 61% of the two active groups, alongside 32 discontinuations due to adverse events.
- At least 50% seizure-frequency reduction
- 83% at 200 mg/day; 61% at 100 mg/dayPublished results narrative; placebo responder percentage is not supplied in the checked passage
- Adverse-event discontinuations
- 12/30 at 200 mg/day; 12/30 at 100 mg/day; 8/30 with placeboCounts as reported in methods; 32/90 total withdrawals
- Cognitive and mood outcomes
- Improvements reported; exact scale differences are in image tablesMMSE, depression, asthenia and P300 assessments; no reconstructed numbers
Study design, methods and source notes
90 patients, three groups of 30, on unchanged antiepileptic treatment. Adverse-event discontinuations occurred in all arms.
- The text separately describes 48 active-group completers, which does not reconcile with 60 active allocations minus 24 withdrawals. Preserve reported response percentages without reconstructing their denominators or claiming a clear intention-to-treat effect. Table images and missing-data analysis remain review priorities.
- Adjunctive epilepsy findings do not establish effectiveness or safety in healthy users.
Material checked: Publisher full-text results narrative and available tables checked on 1 November 2026
Original publication ↗Meteoadaptogenic properties of peptide drugs in healthy volunteers
2007 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
127 healthy men aged 20–24 across a three-day environmental program; active groups reported as 10–20, placebo 8–10 per stage
What changed?
Noopept showed different performance and anxiety results under cold, heat and simulated altitude. The tables also distinguish Cortexin, Dilept and Vinpotropil.
- Noopept PWC170 in cold
- 189 ± 10 versus 162 ± 2Source marks p<0.05 versus placebo and historical controlPlacebo comparison in the cold chamber; source PWC170 values, units not added
- Noopept PWC170 in heat
- 188 ± 6 versus 152 ± 1Source marks p<0.05 versus placebo and historical controlPlacebo in the heat chamber; values checked in Table 2
- Noopept arithmetic errors in heat
- 0 ± 0 versus 0.8 ± 0.2Source significance marker versus placebo and historical controlPlacebo in the heat chamber; test-specific errors
Study design, methods and source notes
Placebo stages and historical no-drug controls in the recovered environmental-stress paper. 127 is the whole program total; blinding and random allocation are not established.
- Random allocation and blinding not established; historical controls and baseline differences limit attribution.
- Exact arm-by-environment denominators remain unresolved; 127 is the program total, not Noopept enrollment.
- Experimental intranasal peptide preparations are not equivalent to marketed oral products.
- No validated protection from heat illness, operational accidents or long-term harm.
- Possible overlap with the Academy report; do not count as independent replication.
Material checked: Original publisher PDF, printed pages 42–44: legacy Cyrillic text decoded and selected results rows checked; visual table appraisal remains open
Original publication ↗Picamilon and cerebral blood flow in maladapted swimmers with different systemic hemodynamic types
2011 · Performance / physiology
- Comparator
- Inactive placebo
- Masking
- Not reported
- Randomization
- Not reported
Participants
48 male swimmers aged 10–12 reported overall; subgroup denominator reconciliation remains open
What changed?
The eukinetic subgroup showed different vascular measurements with Picamilon and placebo. These were physiological findings in children, not an adult cognition trial.
- Cerebral venous-outflow measure
- 26.2 ± 1.1% versus 37.5 ± 1.7%p<0.001 as placed in the source tablePicamilon versus placebo; eukinetic subgroup
- Dicrotic index
- 77.7 ± 6.4% versus 53.3 ± 1.1%p<0.01Picamilon versus placebo; physiological index
- Venoarterial ratio
- 78.6 ± 6.9% versus 51.7 ± 1.4%p<0.01Picamilon versus placebo
Study design, methods and source notes
Original report describes active, placebo and control conditions in young swimmers. Exact subgroup denominators remain unresolved.
- The allocation passage lists groups of six while the overall sample is 48; do not infer a simple 16/16/16 split.
- Blinding, outcome multiplicity and overlap with other swimmer reports remain unresolved.
- Pediatric hemodynamic outcomes do not establish adult cognitive or occupational benefit.
Material checked: Original journal-page PDF reproduction, printed page 151: selected table rows and neighboring results checked; full allocation reconciliation remains open
Original publication ↗Other controlled designs and related reports
These records help explain the research, but are not added to the journal-comparison count above.
Pirabel, Bemitil and prolonged physical work
78 healthy volunteers aged 18–25, divided into eight groups; six-hour physical-load model
The book describes a double-blind comparison including placebo, Bemitil, and Pirabel, with performance and recovery measures. It reports endpoint-specific differences, not universal improvement.
Recovered monograph describes a double-blind placebo comparison in 78 volunteers across eight groups; original cited reports remain to be retrieved.
Study details and recovered book →Why some randomized, blinded or controlled records are outside this collection
Ranquilon versus Afobazol for anxiety in neurasthenia and adjustment disorders: open randomized phase IV comparison
Open randomized Ranquilon versus Afobazol comparison. Both arms received active medicines; not a placebo trial.
Dose-ranging CCK-4 panic-challenge study in healthy volunteers
Randomized double-blind placebo challenge used CCK-4 to provoke panic symptoms. No GB-115 was administered, and this was not a therapeutic efficacy trial.
Therapeutic equivalence of intravenous and intramuscular dosage forms of Cortexin in ischemic strokes
Double-blind double-dummy comparison of IV versus IM Cortexin. Every participant received active Cortexin; placebo injections maintained masking. This does not test active drug against inactive placebo.
Efficacy and possible mechanisms of action of Selank in generalized anxiety disorders and neurasthenia
Selank anxiety treatment was compared with medazepam, an active medicine. The separate placebo-controlled Selank fMRI study is included above.
Integrative assessment of the effectiveness and safety of outpatient use of Picamilon
Both groups received active Picamilon on different schedules. This is an open active-treatment comparison.
Pineamin and ejaculate quality and symptoms associated with male aging
Pineamin was compared with L-carnitine, not inactive placebo.
Geroprotective effect of epithalamine (pineal gland peptide preparation) in elderly subjects with accelerated aging
Randomized Epithalamin follow-up with basic-care controls. A matched placebo is not established by the checked abstract; this is also a tissue extract, not synthetic Epitalon.
Pineal-regulating tetrapeptide epitalon improves eye retina condition in retinitis pigmentosa
Retinitis-pigmentosa comparison used conventional care rather than matched placebo. It remains human clinical evidence, but belongs outside this placebo collection.
Neuropeptide immunocorrection in patients with multiple sclerosis
Standard therapy plus Cortexin versus standard therapy alone. No placebo arm.
Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of drugs
The abstract says double-blind but does not identify the control preparation. Blinding alone is not sufficient to verify an inactive placebo arm from the material checked.
[Use of the Gepon immunomodulator for ulcerative colitis treatment].
The Gepon ulcerative-colitis abstract describes 36 treated patients without establishing a concurrent inactive placebo arm.
Dal-PROTECT: prevention of organ dysfunction after high-risk abdominal surgery
Placebo-controlled trial registration or protocol; no completed outcome results entered. Planned design is not a completed trial finding.
Nephropept NPR-11-2022: Phase II trial registration
Phase II registry entry without completed findings in the checked source. Kept outside the completed-report count.
Related Ladasten analyses and the Epitalon translation
The Ladasten EEG/self-evaluation reports (2012) compare active drug and placebo but may reuse participants from earlier work. They are not added as separate trial cohorts here.
EEG subgroup report → · Single-dose self-evaluation report →
The 2020 Ivko circadian paper, its 2021 English translation and the related World Heart Journal article may share participants. The full-text 2021 report represents that comparison above; the urinary melatonin result remains accessible in the 2020 source record.
Sources and search scope
This is a curated research guide, not an exhaustive systematic review. Screening started with Molekul’s source library and followed targeted PubMed and Europe PMC searches for placebo, double-blind and randomized human reports on the indexed compounds, including spelling variants. Primary abstracts and available original papers were checked through 1 November 2026.
Inclusion requires an identifiable human inactive-placebo comparison in the material checked. Reviews, animal studies, trial registrations without results and active-only comparisons are outside the main count. A matching title or publication-type label alone is not enough to establish every design feature.
Newly added source records include Thymogen surgical preparation, Thymalin in severe COVID-19, two DSIP physiology experiments five Cerebrolysin trials in brain injury, stroke, ALS and Alzheimer’s disease, and the phase II/III GB-115 (Ranquilon) placebo trials. These are newly catalogued historical studies, not newly published November trials.
Open each report for its citation, original source, dose when verified, numerical results and limitations. Bibliography & PDFs → · Study library → · Evidence standards →
Educational information only, not medical advice. Findings apply to the studied preparation, population and endpoint. Seek qualified healthcare help for any medical condition.