Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34666786›Full record

SynthesisFluids and barriers of the CNS2021

Adjunctive cytoprotective therapies in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review.

I A Mulder, E T van Bavel, H E de Vries, J M Coutinho

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The novel ROCK2 selective inhibitor NRL-1049 preserves the blood-brain barrier after acute injury.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. SUMOtherapeutics for Ischemic Stroke.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

I A MulderDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.mulder1@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6609-2206
E T van BavelDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H E de VriesDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J M CoutinhoDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

amsterdam neuroscience NDIS-2019-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the introduction of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), a new era for treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has arrived. However, despite the much larger recanalization rate as compared to thrombolysis alone, final outcome remains far from ideal. This raises the question if some of the previously tested neuroprotective drugs warrant re-evaluation, since these compounds were all tested in studies where large-vessel recanalization was rarely achieved in the acute phase. This review provides an overview of compounds tested in clinical AIS trials and gives insight into which of these drugs warrant a re-evaluation as an add-on therapy for AIS in the era of EVT. A literature search was performed using the search terms "ischemic stroke brain" in title/abstract, and additional filters. After exclusion of papers using pre-defined selection criteria, a total of 89 trials were eligible for review which reported on 56 unique compounds. Trial compounds were divided into 6 categories based on their perceived mode of action: systemic haemodynamics, excitotoxicity, neuro-inflammation, blood-brain barrier and vasogenic edema, oxidative and nitrosative stress, neurogenesis/-regeneration and -recovery. Main trial outcomes and safety issues are summarized and promising compounds for re-evaluation are highlighted. Looking at group effect, drugs intervening with oxidative and nitrosative stress and neurogenesis/-regeneration and -recovery appear to have a favourable safety profile and show the most promising results regarding efficacy. Finally, possible theories behind individual and group effects are discussed and recommendation for promising treatment strategies are described.

Indexed as

HumansIschemic Stroke

Identifiers

PMID34666786
PMCPMC8524879
OpenAlexW3205496669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.