Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35688658›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2022

Neuroprotection by the noble gases argon and xenon as treatments for acquired brain injury: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis.

Min Liang, Fatin Ahmad, Robert Dickinson

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Positive Effects of Argon Inhalation After Traumatic Brain Injury in Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 1 country.

Min LiangAnaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care Section, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Fatin AhmadAnaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care Section, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Robert DickinsonAnaesthetics, Pain Medicine, and Intensive Care Section, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Royal British Legion Centre for Blast Injury Studies, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: r.dickinson@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GBRoyal British Legion · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N027736/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe noble gases argon and xenon are potential novel neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Xenon has already undergone early-stage clinical trials in the treatment of ischaemic brain injuries, with mixed results. Argon has yet to progress to clinical trials as a treatment for brain injury. Here, we aim to synthesise the results of preclinical studies evaluating argon and xenon as neuroprotective therapies for brain injuries.

methodsAfter a systematic review of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, we carried out a pairwise and stratified meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was examined by subgroup analysis, funnel plot asymmetry, and Egger's regression.

resultsA total of 32 studies were identified, 14 for argon and 18 for xenon, involving measurements from 1384 animals, including murine, rat, and porcine models. Brain injury models included ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest (CA), neurological injury after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and ischaemic stroke. Both argon and xenon had significant (P<0.001), positive neuroprotective effect sizes. The overall effect size for argon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-28.1%), and for xenon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 34.1% (95% CI, 24.7-43.6%). Including the CPB model, only present for xenon, the xenon effect size (CPB, CA, TBI, stroke) was 27.4% (95% CI, 11.5-43.3%). Xenon, both with and without the CPB model, was significantly (P<0.001) more protective than argon.

conclusionsThese findings provide evidence to support the use of xenon and argon as neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Current evidence suggests that xenon is more efficacious than argon overall.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesBrain IschemiaHeart ArrestNeuroprotective AgentsStrokeAnimalsArgonMiceNeuroprotectionNoble GasesRatsSwineXenonArgonNeuroprotective AgentsNoble GasesXenonanimal modelscardiac arrestcardiopulmonary bypassinert gasesischaemic brain injuryischaemic strokeneuroprotectiontraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID35688658
PMCPMC9428918
OpenAlexW4281683195

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.