Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34289710›Full record

ReviewStroke2021

Cerebroprotection for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Looking Ahead.

Patrick D Lyden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stroke, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cytoprotection Concepts for Ischemic Stroke in the Recanalization Era.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  15. White matter injury after brain ischemia.Experimental neurology · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. EStroke and vascular neurology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Patrick D LydenDepartment of Physiology and Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA.

Funding

Thrombin Mediated Cytotoxicity during Cerebral IschemiaR01NS075930 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI LYDEN, PATRICK D · 2011 to 2020
$3.6M
The NIH SPAN Coordinating CenterU24NS113452 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI LYDEN, PATRICK D · 2019 to 2021
$2.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS075930NINDS NIH HHS U24 NS113452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We search for ischemic stroke treatment knowing we have failed-intensely and often-to translate mechanistic knowledge into treatments that alleviate our patients' functional impairments. Lessons can be derived from our shared failures that may point to new directions and new strategies. First, the principle criticisms of both preclinical and clinical assessments are summarized. Next, previous efforts to develop single-mechanism treatments are reviewed. Finally, new definitions, novel approaches, and different directions are presented. In previous development efforts, the basic science and preclinical assessment of candidate treatments often lacked rigor and sufficiency; the clinical trials may have lacked power, rigor, or rectitude; or most likely both preclinical and clinical investigations were flawed. Single-target agents directed against specific molecular mechanisms proved unsuccessful. The term neuroprotection should be replaced as it has become ambiguous: protection of the entire neurovascular unit may be called cerebral cytoprotection or cerebroprotection. Success in developing cerebroprotection-either as an adjunct to recanalization or as stand-alone treatment-will require new definitions that recognize the importance of differential vulnerability in the neurovascular unit. Recent focus on pleiotropic multi-target agents that act via multiple mechanisms of action to interrupt ischemia at multiple steps may be more fruitful. Examples of pleiotropic treatments include therapeutic hypothermia and 3K3A-APC (activated protein C). Alternatively, the single-target drug NA-1 triggers multiple downstream signaling events. Renewed commitment to scientific rigor is essential, and funding agencies and journals may enforce quality principles of rigor in preclinical science. Appropriate animal models should be selected that are suited to the purpose of the investigation. Before clinical trials, preclinical assessment could include subjects that are aged, of both sexes, and harbor comorbid conditions such as diabetes or hypertension. With these new definitions, novel approaches, and renewed attention to rigor, the prospect for successful cerebroprotective therapy should improve.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansIschemic StrokeNeuroprotective AgentsNeuroprotective Agentsclinical trial designcytoprotectionhypertensionischemiareview

Identifiers

PMID34289710
PMCPMC8384682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.