Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25348005›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2014

Mechanisms and treatment of ischaemic stroke--insights from genetic associations.

Hugh S Markus, Steve Bevan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects ofBioscience reports · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Interaction betweenExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genetic Variant ofBioMed research international · 2017
    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

2 authors.

Hugh S MarkusStroke Research Group, Department of Neurology, R3, Box 83, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Steve BevanStroke Research Group, Department of Neurology, R3, Box 83, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The precise pathophysiology of ischaemic stroke is unclear, and a greater understanding of the different mechanisms that underlie large-artery, cardioembolic and lacunar ischaemic stroke subtypes would enable the development of more-effective, subtype-specific therapies. Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) are identifying novel genetic variants that associate with the risk of stroke. These associations provide insight into the pathophysiological mechanisms, and present opportunities for novel therapeutic approaches. In this Review, we summarize the genetic variants that have been linked to ischaemic stroke in GWASs to date and discuss the implications of these associations for both our understanding and treatment of ischaemic stroke. The majority of genetic variants identified are associated with specific subtypes of ischaemic stroke, implying that these subtypes have distinct genetic architectures and pathophysiological mechanisms. The findings from the GWASs highlight the need to consider whether therapies should be subtype-specific. Further GWASs that include large cohorts are likely to provide further insights, and emerging technologies will complement and build on the GWAS findings.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain IschemiaGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansStroke

Identifiers

PMID25348005

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.