Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24579051›Full record

ReviewISRN neurology2014

Neuroprotection in stroke: past, present, and future.

Arshad Majid

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ISRN neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.3field-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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review and stratified meta-analysis of the efficacy of carnosine in animal models of ischemic stroke.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Involvement of Ceramide Metabolism in Cerebral Ischemia.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arshad MajidDepartment of Neuroscience, Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience (SITraN), University of Sheffield, 385A Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2HQ, UK ; Department of Neurology and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Salford Royal Hospital, Stott Lane, Salford M6 8HD, UK.
Salford Royal Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke is a devastating medical condition, killing millions of people each year and causing serious injury to many more. Despite advances in treatment, there is still little that can be done to prevent stroke-related brain damage. The concept of neuroprotection is a source of considerable interest in the search for novel therapies that have the potential to preserve brain tissue and improve overall outcome. Key points of intervention have been identified in many of the processes that are the source of damage to the brain after stroke, and numerous treatment strategies designed to exploit them have been developed. In this review, potential targets of neuroprotection in stroke are discussed, as well as the various treatments that have been targeted against them. In addition, a summary of recent progress in clinical trials of neuroprotective agents in stroke is provided.

Identifiers

PMID24579051
PMCPMC3918861
OpenAlexW1970813943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.