ReviewNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2009
Commentary: a skeptical view of experimental gene therapy to block epileptogenesis.
Review in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Prevention or modification of epileptogenesis after brain insults: experimental approaches and translational research.Pharmacological reviews · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Gene therapy offers exciting new options for treating epileptic seizures, and even for blocking the development of epilepsy (i.e., epileptogenesis) after a brain insult. Although the available studies provide interesting new data, the experiments discussed in this issue also have limitations and raise concerns. The criticisms offered in this commentary center around the nature of the experimental testing (e.g., changes in seizure threshold), the animal models (e.g., kindling), and the measures of epileptogenesis in those animal models with spontaneous seizures (e.g., the latent period after pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus). Another set of criticisms relate to the relative lack of positive controls showing that the actual mechanism purported to be activated via the gene-therapeutic approach has in fact been upregulated in the specific animals that show the hypothetical antiepileptic result. This commentary takes the con side in the debate, to generate constructive criticism to help direct future studies to provide increasingly stronger data to support the view that gene therapy approaches may be useful in the treatment of epilepsy.
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.