Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35401553›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2022

Revisiting Minocycline in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Mechanisms and Clinical Translation.

Ruiyi Zhang, V Wee Yong, Mengzhou Xue

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruiyi ZhangThe Departments of Cerebrovascular Diseases, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
V Wee YongHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Mengzhou XueThe Departments of Cerebrovascular Diseases, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
University of Calgary · CASecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is an important subtype of stroke with an unsatisfactory prognosis of high mortality and disability. Although many pre-clinical studies and clinical trials have been performed in the past decades, effective therapy that meaningfully improve prognosis and outcomes of ICH patients is still lacking. An active area of research is towards alleviating secondary brain injury after ICH through neuroprotective pharmaceuticals and in which minocycline is a promising candidate. Here, we will first discuss new insights into the protective mechanisms of minocycline for ICH including reducing iron-related toxicity, maintenance of blood-brain barrier, and alleviating different types of cell death from preclinical data, then consider its shortcomings. Finally, we will review clinical trial perspectives for minocycline in ICH. We hope that this summary and discussion about updated information on minocycline as a viable treatment for ICH can facilitate further investigations.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesNeuroprotective AgentsBlood-Brain BarrierCerebral HemorrhageHumansMinocyclineMinocyclineNeuroprotective Agentsintracerebral hemorrhagemechanismsminocyclineneuroinflammationsecondary brain injury

Identifiers

PMID35401553
PMCPMC8993500
OpenAlexW4220915708

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.