Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19331514›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2009

Combination therapies for traumatic brain injury: prospective considerations.

Susan Margulies, Ramona Hicks, Combination Therapies for Traumatic Brain Injury Workshop Leaders

Open access · hybridAbstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 296 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Safety and efficacy of Cerebrolysin in acute brain injury and neurorecovery: CAPTAIN I-a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, Asian-Pacific trial.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The Role of Nanotechnology in Understanding the Pathophysiology of Traumatic Brain Injury.Central nervous system agents in medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susan MarguliesSchool of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, 210 S. 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6321, USA. margulie@seas.upenn.edu
Ramona Hicks
Combination Therapies for Traumatic Brain Injury Workshop Leaders
California University of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Trauma to Developing Brain-Injury and Repair MechanismsR01NS050159 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI NOBLE, LINDA J. · 2005 to 2013
$2.8M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS050159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) initiates a cascade of numerous pathophysiological events that evolve over time.Despite the complexity of TBI, research aimed at therapy development has almost exclusively focused on single therapies, all of which have failed in multicenter clinical trials. Therefore, in February 2008 the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with support from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, convened a workshop to discuss the opportunities and challenges of testing combination therapies for TBI. Workshop participants included clinicians and scientists from a variety of disciplines, institutions, and agencies. The objectives of the workshop were to: (1) identify the most promising combinations of therapies for TBI; (2) identify challenges of testing combination therapies in clinical and pre-clinical studies; and (3) propose research methodologies and study designs to overcome these challenges. Several promising combination therapies were discussed, but no one combination was identified as being the most promising. Rather, the general recommendation was to combine agents with complementary targets and effects (e.g., mechanisms and time-points), rather than focusing on a single target with multiple agents. In addition, it was recommended that clinical management guidelines be carefully considered when designing pre-clinical studies for therapeutic development.To overcome the challenges of testing combination therapies it was recommended that statisticians and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration be included in early discussions of experimental design. Furthermore, it was agreed that an efficient and validated screening platform for candidate therapeutics, sensitive and clinically relevant biomarkers and outcome measures, and standardization and data sharing across centers would greatly facilitate the development of successful combination therapies for TBI. Overall there was great enthusiasm for working collaboratively to act on these recommendations.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomedical ResearchBrain InjuriesClinical Trials as TopicCombined Modality TherapyDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesResearchResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID19331514
PMCPMC2857809
OpenAlexW2032951220

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.