ArticleJournal of anesthesia2018
Comparison of the protective effects of direct ischemic preconditioning and remote ischemic preconditioning in a rabbit model of transient spinal cord ischemia.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in organ protection: ischemic preconditioning and erythropoietin as protective strategies.International urology and nephrology · 2025Review
- Article
- The combination of hydrogen gas and hydrogen-rich solution does not protect against ischemic spinal cord injury in rabbits.Journal of anesthesia · 2024Article
- Remote ischemic preconditioning protects against spinal cord ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice by activating NMDAR/AMPK/PGC-1α/SIRT3 signaling.Cell & bioscience · 2023Article
- The Mechanism of Delayed Ischemic Preconditioning in Alleviating Acute Ischemia/Reperfusion Renal Injury through Treg Mediated by Immature CD11cKidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to determine the relative potency of direct ischemic preconditioning (DIPC) and remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) for protection against ischemic spinal cord injury in rabbits and to explore the mechanisms involved.
methodsIn experiment 1, we compared the neurological and histopathological outcomes of DIPC, kidney RIPC, and limb RIPC. The DIPC and kidney RIPC groups received two cycles of 5-min occlusion/15-min reperfusion of the abdominal aorta and left renal artery, respectively. The limb RIPC group received two cycles of 10-min occlusion/10-min reperfusion of the femoral arteries bilaterally. Thirty minutes after the conditioning ischemia, spinal cord ischemia was produced by occluding the abdominal aorta for 15 min. In experiments 2 and 3, we investigated whether pretreatment using a free-radical scavenger, dimethylthiourea (DMTU), an adenosine A
resultsIn experiment 1, DIPC improved the neurological and histopathological outcomes, whereas kidney and limb RIPC had no protective effects. In experiments 2 and 3, strong protective effects of DIPC were reconfirmed but were not attenuated by DMTU, DPCPX, or 5HD. In experiment 4, DIPC induced phosphorylation of Akt2.
conclusionsDIPC, but not kidney or limb RIPC, protected against ischemic spinal cord injury in rabbits. Akt2 might contribute to this protective effect.
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.