Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14960125›Full record

SynthesisDrugs & aging2004

Drugs for stroke recovery: the example of amphetamines.

Louise Martinsson, Staffan Eksborg

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drugs & aging, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation.NeuroRx : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2006
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Louise MartinssonInstitution of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. louise.martinsson@ks.se
Staffan Eksborg
Karolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials of pharmacological agents in stroke have mainly focused on events that need to be modified in the very acute stage, such as restoration of blood flow with thrombolytic therapy or reducing the effects of ischaemia with neuroprotective therapy. Thrombolytic therapy is, however, only effective within the first few hours of stroke onset and so far, no neuroprotective therapy has proven to be efficacious in humans. Thus, there is a great need for new pharmacological strategies to improve outcome after stroke. Accumulating evidence supports the assumption that the brain is plastic and improvements can be expected after permanent injuries. Acute and chronic alterations in neurotransmitter regulation after injury affects plasticity and may thus provide a basis for new pharmacological targets for stroke recovery. The search for pharmacological therapies that affect the recovery process after a permanent injury has been intensified during the last decade. Amphetamines, in combination with training, are currently one of the most promising pharmacological strategies studied for recovery after stroke. Several non-mutually exclusive hypotheses, more or less supported by experimental studies, have tried to explain the mechanisms underlying the facilitation of recovery of function with amphetamine treatment. Amphetamines are believed to hasten the processes in the brain, such as plasticity mechanisms and resolution of diaschisis. The combination of amphetamine and task-specific training seems to be of importance to the outcome. Results from animal studies are consistent between different models and species, and mainly show an increased rate of recovery but there are a few exceptions, with some studies reporting no effect or even a decreased recovery rate. In humans the number of randomised controlled studies of amphetamines is growing rapidly. Results from a Cochrane systematic review indicate a faster motor and language recovery rate with treatment, but the number of studies is too few and studies are too small to draw definite conclusions about the effect on recovery of stroke. Data in the systematic review also indicate that the mortality rate is higher in amphetamine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. However, this is most likely because of baseline imbalances between the treatment groups with patients with more severe strokes being allocated to amphetamine treatment. Further clinical trials are justified, but at present amphetamines should not be used in clinical practice.

Indexed as

AmphetaminesAnimalsBrainCentral Nervous System StimulantsHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeTreatment OutcomeAmphetaminesCentral Nervous System Stimulants

Identifiers

PMID14960125
OpenAlexW1061787227

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.