Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21886885›Full record

ArticleSurgical neurology international2011

Spinal cord injury: From inflammation to glial scar.

Manoel Baldoino Leal-Filho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical neurology international, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Function of GSK‑3 signaling in spinal cord injury (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Targeting miR-21 in spinal cord injuries: a game-changer?Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Pyroptosis in spinal cord injury.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Manoel Baldoino Leal-FilhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Casamater Hospital, Teresina, PI, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlial scar (GS) is the most important inhibitor factor to neuroregeneration after spinal cord injury (SCI) and behaves as a tertiary lesion. The present review of the literature searched for representative studies concerning GS and therapeutic strategies to neuroregeneration.

methodsThe author used the PubMed database and Google scholar to search articles published in the last 20 years. Key words used were SCI, spinal cord (SC) inflammation, GS, and SCI treatment.

resultsBoth inflammation and GS are considered important events after SCI. Despite the fact that firstly they seem to cause benefit, in the end they cause more harm than good to neuroregeneration. Each stage has its own aspects under the influence of the immune system causing inflammation, from the primary to secondary lesion and from those to GS (tertiary lesion).

conclusionFuture studies should stress the key points where and when GS presents itself as an inhibitory factor to neuroregeneration. Considering GS as an important event after SCI, the author defends GS as being a tertiary lesion. Current strategies are presented with emphasis on stem cells and drug therapy. A better understanding will permit the development of a therapeutic basis in the treatment of the SCI patients considering each stage of the lesion, with emphasis on GS and neuroregeneration.

Indexed as

Glial scarspinal cord inflammationspinal cord injuryspinal cord injury treatment

Identifiers

PMID21886885
PMCPMC3162797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.