ArticleJournal of experimental neuroscience2015
Comparison of Neurocognitive Testing and the Measurement of Marinobufagenin in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Preliminary Report.
Article in Journal of experimental neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic Administration of Marinobufagenin in Mice Causes Hyperlocomotion and Decrease in Anxiety by Altering Monoamine Turnover Unaccompanied by Motor Deficits or Oxidative Stress.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Potential Biomarkers in Experimental Animal Models for Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Drug Toxicity Evaluation Based on Organ-on-a-chip Technology: A Review.Micromachines · 2020Review
- Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: From Present to Future.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Biochemical Parameters in Cognitive Functions.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2020Review
- The current state of biomarkers of mild traumatic brain injury.JCI insight · 2018Review
- Review
- Digital neuropsychological test performance in a large sample of uninjured collegiate athletes.Applied neuropsychology. AdultArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of concussed athletes, including testing to determine if and when they may return to play, has become an important task of athletic trainers and team physicians. Currently, concussion protocols are in place, which depend largely upon assessments based upon neurocognitive testing (NCT). The authors have evaluated the use of a biomarker of brain trauma, marinobufagenin (MBG), and compared its application in concussed athletes with the performance of NTC. We found a disparity between these two testing procedures. In this communication, the findings of these comparative data are presented. We noted that athletes whose NCT evaluations had returned to baseline and who were allowed to again participate in play then showed a recurrence of elevated urinary MBG excretion. These observations raise concern as to the processes currently in effect with regard to the decision as to returning athletes to the full activity. They suggest a need for further evaluation.
Indexed as
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.