Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27630000›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2016

[Drugs for improvement of motor deficits after stroke].

J Liepert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

J LiepertKliniken Schmieder Allensbach, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Deutschland. j.liepert@kliniken-schmieder.de.
Kliniken Schmieder · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials with a variety of drugs have been performed for approximately 20 years in order to support functional restitution of motor deficits after a stroke. Nowadays, serotonin reuptake inhibitors show the highest level of evidence due to the largest number of positive studies and L‑dopa also seems to be effective; however, much fewer studies have been conducted. In the majority of trials amphetamines provided no additional benefits and D‑cycloserine cannot be recommended either. Future therapeutic approaches, e.g. anti-nogo antibodies and cell therapy are presented.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalCombined Modality TherapyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLevodopaMolecular Targeted TherapyMovement DisordersNeuromuscular AgentsOutcome Assessment, Health CareSelective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsStem Cell TransplantationStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, MonoclonalLevodopaNeuromuscular AgentsSelective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsAntibodiesCell therapyL-DopaPharmacotherapySerotonin reuptake inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID27630000
OpenAlexW2537805497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.