Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30358641›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2018

Proteomic changes in traumatic brain injury: experimental approaches.

James L Sowers, Ping Wu, Kangling Zhang, Douglas S DeWitt, Donald S Prough

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Experimental model for the study of traumatic brain injury.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

5 authors.

James L SowersMD/PhD Combined Degree Program and The Neuroscience Graduate Program.
Ping WuDepartment of Cell Biology, Neuroscience and Anatomy.
Kangling ZhangDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology.
Douglas S DeWittDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston, Texas, USA.
Donald S ProughDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Galveston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Oxidation of 5-methylcytosine: DNA damage and epigenetic reprogrammingR01CA184097 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI SOWERS, LAWRENCE C, ZHANG, KANGLING · 2014 to 2018
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA184097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe underlying mechanisms responsible for chronic and progressive neurological damage after traumatic brain injury (TBI) are poorly understood, and therefore, current treatment options are limited. Proteomics is an emerging methodology to study changes to the TBI proteome in both patients and experimental models. RECENT

findingsAlthough experimentally complex, mass spectrometry-based proteomics approaches are converging on a set of common methods. However, these methods are being applied to an increasingly diverse range of experimental models and types of injury. SUMMARY: In this review, our aim is to briefly describe experimental TBI models and the underlying methods common to most proteomic approaches. We will then review a series of articles that have recently appeared in which these approaches have been applied to important TBI questions. We will summarize several recent experimental studies, and suggest how the results of these emerging studies might impact future research as well as patient treatment.

Indexed as

ProteomicsAnimalsBrain Injuries, TraumaticDisease Models, AnimalHumansNerve Degeneration

Identifiers

PMID30358641
PMCPMC6221404

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.