Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Compound monograph · §3

Selank — clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes with certainty ratings, contributing trials and the reasoning for each rating.

Document identifier
CEI-MN-037/3
Series
Compound monograph
Version
1.0
Published
09 Feb 2026
Last reviewed
09 Feb 2026
Next review
09 Feb 2028
Identifier
10.71829/cei.mono.37
Certainty
Low
Cycle
2026 Q1

§3Clinical evidence

Assessed outcomes for SelankPoint estimates with confidence intervals for each contributing study, plotted against the line of no effect.0.00.10.20.30.40.50.6Standardised direction and relative magnitude of the recorded effectIndicationEffect as recordedCognition1 trial · Very lowRussian clinical studies report…
Moderate or high certaintyLow or very low certainty
Figure 3. Illustrative. Assessed outcomes plotted on a common standardised axis so that direction and relative magnitude can be compared at a glance. The estimates are not on a common natural scale and the intervals are the Institute's standardised representation of the reported precision, not the published confidence intervals. Published intervals appear in the per-indication extracts and in the text below.

§3.1Cognitive performance and neuroprotection

Anchor outcome. Domain-specific cognitive test scores.

Effect as recorded. Russian clinical studies report anxiolytic effect comparable to benzodiazepines without sedation or withdrawal; not extractable to the Institute's standard.[1,2]

Certainty. Very low certainty Downgraded for risk of bias and reporting limitations. A claim of benzodiazepine-equivalent anxiolysis without dependence would be a substantial pharmacological finding and would require correspondingly strong evidence.

Contributing trials. SELANK-RU-ANXIETY. Full structured abstracts are published for each.

Full evidence extract for cognitive performance and neuroprotection · Indication assessment

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. D’Hondt M, Bracke N, Taevernier L, Gevaert B, Verbeke F, Wynendaele E, De Spiegeleer B. Related impurities in peptide medicines. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2014;101:2–30. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2014.06.012 · PMID 25044089
  2. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · PMID 31462531

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.