Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28406964›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor therapy for stroke: A pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

Xin Huang, Yu Liu, Shuang Bai, Lidan Peng, Boai Zhang, Hong Lu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inflammatory Responses After Ischemic Stroke.Seminars in immunopathology · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xin HuangDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Yu LiuDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Shuang BaiDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Lidan PengDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Boai ZhangDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Hong LuDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is atherapeutic candidate for stroke that has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties. Data from preclinical and clinical studies have suggested the safety and efficacy of G-CSF in stroke; however, the exact effects and utility of this cytokine in patients remain disputed. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of G-CSF in ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke to assess its clinical safety and efficacy. Electronic databases were searched for relevant publications in English and Chinese. A total of 14 trials met the inclusion criteria. G-CSF (cumulative dose range, 1-135μg/kg/day) was tested against placebo in a total of 1037 participants. There was no difference in the rate of mortality between groups (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.97, p = 0.40). Moreover, the rate of serious adverse events did not differ between groups and provided evidence for the safety of G-CSF administration in stroke patients (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.61, p = 0.57). No significant outcome benefits were noted with respect to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (mean difference, -0.16; 95% confidence interval, -1.02-0.70, p = 0.72); however, improvements were noted with respect to the Barthel Index (mean difference, 8.65; 95% confidence interval 0.98-16.32; p = 0.03). In conclusion, it appears to be safe in administration of G-CSF, but it will increase leukocyte count. G-CSF was weakly significant benefit with improving the BI scores, while there was no improvement in the NIHSS scores. Larger and more robustly designed trials of G-CSF in stroke are needed to confirm the results.

Indexed as

FemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansLeukocyte CountMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID28406964
PMCPMC5391086
OpenAlexW2605878903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.