Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20175864›Full record

ReviewJournal of internal medicine2010

The neurovascular unit in the setting of stroke.

G J del Zoppo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of internal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

136 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Citicoline and Vitamin BAdvances in therapy · 2020
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Differential Vulnerability and Response to Injury among Brain Cell Types Comprising the Neurovascular Unit.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

76 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

1 author.

G J del ZoppoDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. grgdlzop@u.washington.edu

Funding

Neurovascular Adhesion Receptors and Barrier IntegrityR01NS053716 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DEL ZOPPO, GREGORY J · 2006 to 2016
$3.5M
Matrix Metalloproteinases and Neurons in Focal IschemiaR37NS038710 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DEL ZOPPO, GREGORY J · 2004 to 2010
$3.2M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS053716NINDS NIH HHS R37 NS038710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microvessels and neurons respond rapidly and simultaneously in focal regions of ischaemic injury in such a way as to suggest that the responses could be coordinated. The ability of neurons to modulate cerebral blood flow in regions of activation results from neurovascular coupling. But little is known about the microvessel-to-neuron direction of the relationship. The presence and participation of intervening glial cells implies the association of microvessels, glia, and neurons in a 'neurovascular unit'. The interdependent functions of the cellular and matrix components of this theoretical unit have not been rigorously explored, except under conditions of injury where, for the most part, only single components or tissue samples have been studied. Whereas maintenance or timely re-establishment of flow reduces tissue and neuron injury in both humans and animal models, protection of neuron function in humans has not prevented the evolution of injury despite the inherent mechanisms of neurovascular coupling. However, occlusion of flow to the brain rapidly identifies regions of neuron-vascular vulnerability within the vascular territory-at-risk. These coalesce to become the mature ischaemic lesion. The failure, so far, of clinical trials of neuron protectant agents to achieve detectable tissue salvage could be explained by the vulnerability (and lack of protection) of essential components of the 'unit'. This presentation summarizes evidence and thoughts on this topic. These support the need to understand component interactions within the neurovascular unit.

Indexed as

BrainBrain IschemiaCerebrovascular CirculationFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMicrocirculationNeuronsNeuroprotective AgentsStrokeFibrinolytic AgentsNeuroprotective Agents

Identifiers

PMID20175864
PMCPMC3001328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.