SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Neurogenic Fever after Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Animal Models: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Animal Welfare Aspects in Planning and Conducting Experiments on Rodent Models of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The observation of neurogenic fever resulting from subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) in animal models is a useful tool for the interpretation of its pathophysiology in humans, which is still a major challenge in the management of neurocritical patients. This systematic review aims to identify the prognostic factors and pathophysiological elements that determine the onset of neurogenic fever and its severity in animal models. In addition, our study aims to analyze which pharmacological treatments are most effective. All the articles available in Pubmed, Embase, and the Biological Science Collection until August 2021 concerning in vivo experimental studies on SAH animal models, including full texts and abstracts written in English and Italian, were considered. The risk of bias was assessed with SYRCLE's Risk of Bias tool. In total, 81 records were retrieved; after excluding duplicates, 76 records were potentially relevant. A total of 64 articles was excluded after title and abstract screening. The remaining 12 studies were evaluated as full texts, and 6 other studies were excluded (SAH-induced animal studies without a body temperature assessment). In one study, body temperature was measured after SAH induction, but the authors did not report temperature recording. Therefore, only five studies met the search criteria. The high methodological heterogeneity (different animal species, different temperature measurement methods, and different methods of the induction of bleeding) prevented meta-analysis. Synthesis methodology without meta-analysis (SWiM) was used for data analysis. The total number of animals used as controls was 87 (23 rabbits, 32 mice, and 32 rats), while there were 130 animals used as interventions (54 rabbits, 44 mice, and 32 rats). The presence of blood in the subarachnoid space, particularly red blood cells, is responsible for neurogenic fever; the role of hemoglobin is unclear. The mechanism is apparently not mediated by prostaglandins. The autonomic nervous system innervating brown adipose tissue is undoubtedly implicated in the onset of neurogenic fever. The activation of the central adenosine-1 receptor is effective in controlling the temperature of animals with neurogenic fever (by inhibiting thermogenesis of brown adipose tissue).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.