Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30762019›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2019

Use of a combination strategy to improve neuroprotection and neuroregeneration in a rat model of acute spinal cord injury.

Elisa García, Roxana Rodríguez-Barrera, Vinnitsa Buzoianu-Anguiano, Adrian Flores-Romero, Emanuel Malagón-Axotla, Marco Guerrero-Godinez, Estefanía De la Cruz-Castillo, Laura Castillo-Carvajal, Monserrat Rivas-Gonzalez, Paola Santiago-Tovar and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Elisa GarcíaCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto CAMINA A.C.; Ciudad de México, México.
Roxana Rodríguez-BarreraCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto CAMINA A.C.; Ciudad de México, México.
Vinnitsa Buzoianu-AnguianoUnidad de Investigación Médica en Enfermedades Neurologicas, Hospital Especialidades CMN Siglo XXI, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Adrian Flores-RomeroCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto CAMINA A.C.; Ciudad de México, México.
Emanuel Malagón-AxotlaCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México.
Marco Guerrero-GodinezUnidad de Rehabilitación Osteoarticular. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación. Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Estefanía De la Cruz-CastilloCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México.
Laura Castillo-CarvajalCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México.
Monserrat Rivas-GonzalezCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México.
Paola Santiago-TovarCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México.
Ivis MoralesCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México.
Cesar BorlonganCenter of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair, Department of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA.
Antonio IbarraCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo. de México, México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto CAMINA A.C.; Ciudad de México, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injury is a very common pathological event that has devastating functional consequences in patients. In recent years, several research groups are trying to find an effective therapy that could be applied in clinical practice. In this study, we analyzed the combination of different strategies as a potential therapy for spinal cord injury. Immunization with neural derived peptides (INDP), inhibition of glial scar formation (dipyridyl: DPY), as well as the use of biocompatible matrix (fibrin glue: FG) impregnated with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were combined and then its beneficial effects were evaluated in the induction of neuroprotection and neuroregeneration after acute SCI. Sprague-Dawley female rats were subjected to a moderate spinal cord injury and then randomly allocated into five groups: 1) phosphate buffered saline; 2) DPY; 3) INDP + DPY; 4) DPY+ FG; 5) INDP + DPY + FG + MSCs. In all rats, intervention was performed 72 hours after spinal cord injury. Locomotor and sensibility recovery was assessed in all rats. At 60 days after treatment, histological examinations of the spinal cord (hematoxylin-eosin and Bielschowsky staining) were performed. Our results showed that the combination therapy (DPY+ INDP + FG + MSCs) was the best strategy to promote motor and sensibility recovery. In addition, significant increases in tissue preservation and axonal density were observed in the combination therapy group. Findings from this study suggest that the combination theapy (DPY+ INDP + FG + MSCs) exhibits potential effects on the protection and regeneration of neural tissue after acute spinal cord injury. All procedures were approved by the Animal Bioethics and Welfare Committee (approval No. 178544; CSNBTBIBAJ 090812960) on August 15, 2016.

Indexed as

fibrin glueglial scarmesenchymal stem cellsneural derived peptidesneural regenerationprotective autoimmunity

Identifiers

PMID30762019
PMCPMC6404491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.