Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19664136›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2009

Stroke research at a road block: the streets from adversity should be paved with meta-analysis and good laboratory practice.

Ulrich Dirnagl, Malcolm R Macleod

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Data Standardization and Quality Management.Translational stroke research · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ulrich DirnaglDepartment of Neurology, Charite University Medicine, Berlin, Germany. ulrich.dirnagl@charite.de
Malcolm R Macleod

Funding

Chief Scientist Office
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this issue, Bath et al. use state of the art meta-analytical tools to address the pressing question of why NXY-059, a compound at the time considered to fulfil all the recommendations for the evaluation of preclinical data regarding neuroprotective drugs, has failed clinically. They demonstrate quantitatively that a negative publication bias existed, that the compound was indeed neuroprotective in experimental stroke, but that bias may have resulted in an overestimation of efficacy, and that efficacy in healthy, male, adolescent animals is a poor predictor of success in clinical trial. The study contains important messages for researchers, journal editors, the pharmaceutical industry and science policy makers. Bias is both prevalent and relevant in experiments modelling human stroke. Simple measures can reduce, perhaps substantially, the impact of such bias. The decision to proceed to clinical trial should be based on a thorough and systematic review of the animal data.

Indexed as

AnimalsBenzenesulfonatesDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalFemaleMaleMeta-Analysis as TopicNeuroprotective AgentsStrokeBenzenesulfonatesdisufenton sodiumNeuroprotective Agents

Identifiers

PMID19664136
PMCPMC2743833

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.