ReviewNeurocritical care2005
Development of adjunctive therapies for bacterial meningitis and lessons from knockout mice.
Review in Neurocritical care, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebrospinal Fluid Presepsin As a Marker of Nosocomial Infections of the Central Nervous System: A Prospective Observational Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- The causative pathogen determines the inflammatory profile in cerebrospinal fluid and outcome in patients with bacterial meningitis.Mediators of inflammation · 2013Article
- Unusual cause of cerebral vasospasm after pituitary surgery.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2011Article
- Inhibition of inducible nitric oxide controls pathogen load and brain damage by enhancing phagocytosis of Escherichia coli K1 in neonatal meningitis.The American journal of pathology · 2010Article
- Animal models of Streptococcus pneumoniae disease.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacterial meningitis is a medical emergency and is optimally managed in an intensive care environment. Despite the use of antibiotics, the prognosis of this disease is poor because of central nervous system complications such as brain edema formation, cerebrovascular alterations, intracranial hemorrhage, and hydrocephalus. Effective adjunctive therapies are still missing. Experimental studies with animal models have provided new insights into the pathophysiology during the acute phase of bacterial meningitis. In recent years, knockout mice have become a powerful tool to investigate the role of particular genes and have also been applied in bacterial meningitis research. The use of these mice offered new insights into the role of different cytokines, proteases, and oxidants involved in the inflammatory cascade. Translating this knowledge into new therapies will provide new treatment strategies for this serious disease in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.