SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006
Monoaminergic agonists for acute traumatic brain injury.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do prescription stimulants increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events?: A systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2012Pooled it
- Article
- Catecholamines and cognition after traumatic brain injury.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2016Review
- Catecholaminergic based therapies for functional recovery after TBI.Brain research · 2016Review
- Traumatic brain injury: an overview of pathobiology with emphasis on military populations.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2010Review
- Emerging treatments for traumatic brain injury.Expert opinion on emerging drugs · 2009Review
- Pharmacology of traumatic brain injury: where is the "golden bullet"?Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.)Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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. As an alternative, there is growing interest in approaches to enhance brain repair after injury. Animal models suggest that agents enhancing monoaminergic (MA) transmission, particularly amphetamines, promote motor recovery from focal brain injury and it is proposed that this might represent a complementary means of therapeutic intervention in the later post-injury phase.
objectivesTo evaluate the evidence that MAs improve final outcome after TBI. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2005), the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (to May 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2005), EMBASE (1980 to May 2005) and the Science Citation Index (1992 to June 2005). We contacted researchers and authors of published and unpublished trials. Searches were updated in May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a MA (together with conventional non-pharmacological rehabilitative therapy) versus conventional non-pharmacological rehabilitative therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors 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 met inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS'
conclusionsAt present there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of MAs to promote recovery after TBI.
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.