Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25163400›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroinflammation2014

Neutrophil contribution to spinal cord injury and repair.

Virginie Neirinckx, Cécile Coste, Rachelle Franzen, André Gothot, Bernard Rogister, Sabine Wislet

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuroinflammation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

39 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Virginie Neirinckx
Cécile Coste
Rachelle Franzen
André Gothot
Bernard Rogister
Sabine WisletGIGA Research Center, Neurosciences Unit, Nervous system diseases and treatment, University of Liège, Avenue de l'Hôpital, 1, Liège, 4000, Belgium. s.wislet@ulg.ac.be.
University of Liège · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injuries remain a critical issue in experimental and clinical research nowadays, and it is now well accepted that the immune response and subsequent inflammatory reactions are of significant importance in regulating the damage/repair balance after injury. The role of macrophages in such nervous system lesions now becomes clearer and their contribution in the wound healing process has been largely described in the last few years. Conversely, the contribution of neutrophils has traditionally been considered as detrimental and unfavorable to proper tissue regeneration, even if there are very few studies available on their precise impact in spinal cord lesions. Indeed, recent data show that neutrophils are required for promoting functional recovery after spinal cord trauma. In this review, we gathered recent evidence concerning the role of neutrophils in spinal cord injuries but also in some other neurological diseases, highlighting the need for further understanding the different mechanisms involved in spinal cord injury and repair.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansNeutrophilsRecovery of FunctionRegenerationSpinal Cord InjuriesWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID25163400
PMCPMC4174328
OpenAlexW2041394945

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.