Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12535499›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Noradrenergic agonists for acute traumatic brain injury.

R Forsyth, B Jayamoni

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R ForsythDepartment of Child Health, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Department of Child Health, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, UK, NE1 4LP. r.j.forsyth@newcastle.ac.uk
B Jayamoni
Newcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there have been considerable gains in understanding the cascade of events that lead to secondary injury after traumatic brain injury (TBI), efforts to translate this understanding into new therapeutic, so-called neuroprotective, approaches have so far proven disappointing. Animal models suggest an alternative strategy: agents enhancing monoaminergic transmission, particularly amphetamines, have been shown to promote motor recovery from focal brain injury and it has been suggested that this might represent a complementary means of therapeutic intervention in the later post-injury phase.

objectivesTo evaluate the evidence that amphetamines improve final outcome after traumatic brain injury. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. Researchers and authors of published trials were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a noradrenergic agonist (together with conventional non-pharmacological rehabilitative therapy) versus conventional non-pharmacological rehabilitative therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed trial quality. MAIN

resultsAlthough there is a limited clinical literature addressing this topic, none of the studies identified fully meets inclusion criteria for this review. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAt present there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of methylphenidate or other amphetamines to promote recovery from TBI.

Indexed as

Adrenergic alpha-AgonistsAmphetaminesBrain InjuriesHumansNorepinephrineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdrenergic alpha-AgonistsAmphetaminesNorepinephrine

Identifiers

PMID12535499
OpenAlexW30384708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.