Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443577›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Colony stimulating factors (including erythropoietin, granulocyte colony stimulating factor and analogues) for stroke.

P M W Bath, N Sprigg

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Stem cell therapy in stroke: a review literature.International journal of preventive medicine · 2013
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Growth factors in ischemic stroke.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2011
    Review
  7. Multifunctional actions of approved and candidate stroke drugs.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2009
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P M W BathUniversity of Nottingham, Division of Stroke Medicine, South Block D Floor, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2UH. philip.bath@nottingham.ac.uk
N Sprigg
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColony stimulating factors (CSFs), also called haematopoietic growth factors, regulate bone marrow production of circulating red and white cells, and platelets. They have been shown to be neuroprotective in experimental stroke. Some CSFs also mobilise the release of bone marrow stem cells into the circulation.

objectivesTo assess the effects of CSFs on functional outcome and haematology measures in patients with acute or subacute stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched November 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1985 to June 2006), EMBASE (1985 to June 2006), and Science Citation Index (1985 to June 2006). In an attempt to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we contacted manufacturers and principal investigators of trials (last contacted 2006). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Unconfounded randomised controlled trials recruiting patients with acute or subacute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke were included. CSFs included stem cell factor (SCF), erythropoietin (EPO), granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), macrophage-colony stimulating factor (M-CSF, CSF-1), and thrombopoietin (TPO), or analogues of these. The primary outcome was functional outcome (assessed as combined death or disability and dependency using scales such as the modified Rankin Scale or Barthel Index) at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes included safety at the end of treatment (death, impairment, deterioration, extension or recurrence), death at the end of follow up, and haematology measures (blood counts at or around day seven after treatment commenced). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsNo large trials were identified. EPO therapy was associated with a non-significant reduction in neurological impairment in one small trial (n = 40 participants) but had no significant effect on haematological measures. G-CSF was associated with a non-significant reduction in combined death and dependency in two small trials (n = 46 participants) although there was substantial heterogeneity in this result. G-CSF significantly elevated white cell count in three trials (n = 91). Further small trials of EPO and G-CSF are ongoing. AUTHORS'

conclusionsNo large trials of EPO, G-CSF or other colony stimulating factors have been performed and it is too early to know whether CSFs improve functional outcome.

Indexed as

Colony-Stimulating FactorsErythropoietinGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeColony-Stimulating FactorsErythropoietinGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID17443577
OpenAlexW4233403173

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.