Authors' reply to Whitlock: Perispinal etanercept for post-stroke neurological and cognitive dysfunction: scientific rationale and current evidence.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes.CMAJ open · 2018
   Article
2. Perispinal Delivery of CNS Drugs.CNS drugs · 2016
   Review
3. A Neurologist's Guide to TNF Biology and to the Principles behind the Therapeutic Removal of Excess TNF in Disease.Neural plasticity · 2015
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Perispinal etanercept for post-stroke neurological and cognitive dysfunction: scientific rationale and current evidence.2014
• Comment on
  Comment on: "Perispinal Etanercept for Post-Stroke Neurological and Cognitive Dysfunction: Scientific Rationale and Current Evidence".2014

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as