Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25852631›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2015

Bench-to-Bedside and Bedside Back to the Bench; Seeking a Better Understanding of the Acute Pathophysiological Process in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Denes V Agoston

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. In-vitro blood-brain barrier modeling: A review of modern and fast-advancing technologies.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2018
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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.

Denes V AgostonDepartment of Anatomy, Physiology and Genetics, Uniformed Services University , Bethesda, MD , USA ; Department of Neuroscience, Experimental Neurotrauma, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite substantial investments, traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains one of the major disorders that lack specific pharmacotherapy. To a substantial degree, this situation is due to lack of understanding of the pathophysiological process of the disease. Experimental TBI research offers controlled, rapid, and cost-effective means to identify the pathophysiology but translating experimental findings into clinical practice can be further improved by using the same or similar outcome measures and clinically relevant time points. The pathophysiology during the acute phase of severe TBI is especially poorly understood. In this Mini review, I discuss some of the incongruences between current clinical practices and needs versus information provided by experimental TBI research as well as the benefits of designing animal experiments with translation into clinical practice in mind.

Indexed as

acutebraininjuryseveretraumatic

Identifiers

PMID25852631
PMCPMC4362297

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.