Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27610458›Full record

ReviewExpert opinion on therapeutic patents2016

Medical countermeasures for unwanted CBRN exposures: part II radiological and nuclear threats with review of recent countermeasure patents.

Vijay K Singh, Patricia L P Romaine, Victoria L Newman, Thomas M Seed

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert opinion on therapeutic patents, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cell Therapies for Acute Radiation Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. rBPIAmerican journal of hematology · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vijay K Singha Department of Pharmacology and Molecular Therapeutics , F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda , MD , USA.
Patricia L P Romaineb Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute , Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda , MD , USA.
Victoria L Newmanb Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute , Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda , MD , USA.
Thomas M Seedc Tech Micro Services , Bethesda , MD , USA.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe global threat of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) disaster is an important priority for all government agencies involved in domestic security and public health preparedness. Radiological/nuclear (RN) attacks or accidents have become a larger focus of the United States Food and Drug administration (US FDA) over time because of their increased likeliness. Clinical signs and symptoms of a developing acute radiation syndrome (ARS) are grouped into three sub-syndromes named for the dominant organ system affected, namely the hematopoietic (H-ARS), gastrointestinal (GI-ARS), and neurovascular systems. The availability of safe and effective countermeasures against radiological/nuclear threats currently represents a significant unmet medical need. Areas covered: This article reviews the development of RN threat medical countermeasures and highlights those specific countermeasures that have been recently patented and approved following the FDA Animal Rule. Patents for such agents from 2015 have been presented. Expert opinion: Two granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-based radiation countermeasures (Neupogen® (Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA) and Neulasta® (Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA)) have recently been approved by the FDA for treatment of H-ARS and both these agents are radiomitigators, used after radiation exposure. To date, there are no FDA-approved radioprotectors for ARS.

Indexed as

Acute Radiation SyndromeAnimalsDisaster PlanningGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansPatents as TopicRadiation-Protective AgentsRadioactive Hazard ReleaseTerrorismUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorRadiation-Protective AgentsAnimal Rulecountermeasuresfood and drug administrationradiological and nuclear threats

Identifiers

PMID27610458
PMCPMC5152556
OpenAlexW2511410973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.