ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2006
Age determination of brain contusions.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myeloperoxydase and CD15 With Glycophorin C Double Staining in the Evaluation of Skin Wound Vitality in Forensic Practice.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Traumatic brain injury: Estimate of the age of the injury based on neuroinflammation, endothelial activation markers and adhesion molecules.Histology and histopathology · 2021Review
- Fast microglial activation after severe traumatic brain injuries.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
- Histology of Brain Trauma and Hypoxia-Ischemia.Academic forensic pathology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 104 individuals who had sustained traumatic brain injury, the course of traumatically induced morphological changes was investigated immunohistochemically during the first 30 weeks after the trauma. Regarding the inflammatory cell reaction in human cortical contusions, CD15-labeled granulocytes were detectable within 10 minutes following brain injury, whereas significantly increased numbers of nuclear leukocytes occurred after a postinfliction interval of at least 1.1 days (leukocyte common antigen), 2 days (CD3), or 3.7 days (UCHL-1), respectively. A positive nuclear staining for the proliferation marker MIB-1 by cerebral macrophages could be observed as early as 3 days after the injury and regularly in cases with a survival between 7 and 11 days. Injury-induced glial staining reactions could be demonstrated, at the earliest, after a postinfliction interval of 3 hours for α1-antichymotrypsin, 22 hours for vimentin, 1 day for glial fibrillary acidic protein, and 7 days for tenascin. Regarding the vascular response to brain injury, a significantly increased immunoreactivity could be detected in cortical contusions with a wound age of at least 3 hours for factor VIII, 1.6 days for tenascin, and 6.8 days for thrombomodulin, whereas the immunostaining for laminin and type IV collagen was regularly whereas the immunostaining for laminin and type IV collagen was regularly positive even in the vascular endothelium of ininjured brain tissue.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.