ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2015
Neurology--the next 10 years.
Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews.BMC medicine · 2021Pooled it
- After 55 Years of Neurorehabilitation, What Is the Plan?Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Case of early-onset Alzheimer's disease with atypical manifestation.General psychiatry · 2021Article
- MOG-IgG in NMO and related disorders: a multicenter study of 50 patients. Part 2: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, radiological and laboratory features, treatment responses, and long-term outcome.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2016Article
- MOG-IgG in NMO and related disorders: a multicenter study of 50 patients. Part 1: Frequency, syndrome specificity, influence of disease activity, long-term course, association with AQP4-IgG, and origin.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the launch of our journal as Nature Clinical Practice Neurology in 2005, we have seen remarkable progress in many areas of neurology research, but what does the future hold? Will advances in basic research be translated into effective disease-modifying therapies, and will personalized medicine finally become a reality? For this special Viewpoint article, we invited a panel of Advisory Board members and other journal contributors to outline their research priorities and predictions in neurology for the next 10 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26503922What 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.