Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18193923›Full record

ReviewCNS drugs2008

Secondary stroke prevention: inside the vessels and beyond.

Matthias W Riepe, Roman Huber

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CNS drugs, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 84% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthias W RiepeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Mental Health and Old Age Psychiatry, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany. matthias.riepe@charite.de
Roman Huber
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cerebral ischaemic stroke is frequently a relapsing, if not chronic, disease. Its incidence is age-dependent, and with the ageing of society the need for effective therapies increases. This review considers current and alternative hypotheses underlying secondary prevention of stroke. Currently, secondary stroke prevention is widely practiced with aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), a drug that has been in use for more than 100 years. Newer drugs such as ticlopidine and clopidogrel have subsequently been developed, but their efficacy barely surpasses that of aspirin. Other drugs used in secondary stroke prevention include HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and antihypertensive agents. The endovascular paradigm has shaped the thinking of secondary stroke prevention, and aspirin, ticlopidine and clopidogrel are known as 'platelet inhibitors'; however, their pharmacological and clinical effects are not fully explained within the platelet paradigm. Moreover, in recent years, reduction of stroke incidence has also been observed with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, regardless of their lipid-lowering effects. Hence, current understanding needs to be supplemented by considering mechanisms beyond platelet inhibition. Evidence has shown that aspirin, ticlopidine and clopidogrel share neuroprotective properties not explained by the platelet paradigm and that are reminiscent of a preconditioning effect. This neuroprotective mechanism is also shared with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntihypertensive AgentsAspirinBlood VesselsFibrinolytic AgentsHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsSecondary PreventionStrokeAntihypertensive AgentsAspirinFibrinolytic AgentsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID18193923
OpenAlexW2054188649

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.