Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31571666›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2020

Effect of docosahexaenoic acid on the recovery of motor function in rats with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis.

Zi-Rui Tian, Min Yao, Long-Yun Zhou, Yong-Jia Song, Jie Ye, Yong-Jun Wang, Xue-Jun Cui

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zi-Rui TianInstitute of Spine Disease, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine); Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Min YaoInstitute of Spine Disease, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Shanghai, China.
Long-Yun ZhouKey Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine); Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Rehabilitation Medicine College, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yong-Jia SongInstitute of Spine Disease, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine); Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jie YeDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yong-Jun WangInstitute of Spine Disease, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine); Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Rehabilitation Medicine College, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xue-Jun CuiInstitute of Spine Disease, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education (Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Shanghai, China.
Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNLonghua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveStudies have shown that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) has a beneficial effect in the treatment of spinal cord injury. A meta-analysis was used to study the effect of DHA on the neurological recovery in the rat spinal cord injury model, and the relationship between the recovery of motor function after spinal cord injury and the time and method of administration and the dose of DHA. DATA SOURCE: Published studies on the effect of DHA on spinal cord injury animal models from seven databases were searched from their inception to January 2019, including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed databases. The search terms included "spinal cord injury" "docosahexaenoic acid", and "rats". DATA SELECTION: Studies that evaluated the influence of DHA in rat models of spinal cord injury for locomotor functional recovery were included. The intervention group included any form of DHA treatment and the control group included treatment with normal saline, vehicle solution or no treatment. The Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation's risk of bias assessment tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies. Literature inclusion, quality evaluation and data extraction were performed by two researchers. Meta-analysis was then conducted on all studies that met the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using RevMan 5.1.2. software. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the score on the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale. Secondary outcome measures were the sloping plate test, balance beam test, stair test and grid exploration test.

resultsA total of 12 related studies were included, 3 of which were of higher quality and the remaining 9 were of lower quality. The highest mean Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale score occurred at 42 days after DHA treatment in spinal cord injury rats. At 21 days after treatment, the mean difference in Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan scores between the DHA group and the control group was the most significant (pooled MD = 4.14; 95% CI = 3.58-4.70; P < 0.00001). In the subgroup analysis, improvement in the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale score was more significant in rats administered DHA intravenously (pooled MD = 2.74; 95% CI = 1.41-4.07; P < 0.0001) and subcutaneously (pooled MD = 2.99; 95% CI = 2.29-3.69; P < 0.00001) than in the groups administered DHA orally (pooled MD = 3.04; 95% CI = -1.01 to 7.09; P = 0.14). Intravenous injection of DHA at 250 nmol/kg (pooled MD = 2.94; 95% CI = 2.47-3.41; P < 0.00001] and 1000 nmol/kg [pooled MD = 3.60; 95% CI = 2.66-4.54; P < 0.00001) significantly improved the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale score in rats and promoted the recovery of motor function.

conclusionDHA can promote motor functional recovery after spinal cord injury in rats. The administration of DHA by intravenous or subcutaneous injection is more effective than oral administration of DHA. Intravenous injection of DHA at doses of 250 nmol/kg or 1000 nmol/kg is beneficial. Because of the small number and the low quality of the included studies, more high-quality research is needed in future to substantiate the results.

Indexed as

DHAdocosahexaenoic acidfatty acidmeta-analysismotor functionmotor function recoverpolyunsaturated fatty acidPUFAspinal cord injurysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31571666
PMCPMC6921345
OpenAlexW2975407000

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.