Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37675267›Full record

ReviewBurns & trauma2023

Cellular and molecular mechanisms in vascular repair after traumatic brain injury: a narrative review.

Zi-Ai Zhao, Lingli Yan, Jing Wen, Senthil Kumaran Satyanarayanan, Feng Yu, Jiahong Lu, Yong U Liu, Huanxing Su

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Burns & trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rediscovery of pericytes within the neurovascular unit for cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zi-Ai ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.
Lingli YanState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.
Jing WenState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.
Senthil Kumaran SatyanarayananState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0513-4943
Feng YuState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.
Jiahong LuState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.
Yong U LiuLaboratory of Neuroimmunology in Health and Disease Institute, Guangzhou First People's Hospital School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou Higher Education Mega Center, Panyu District, Guangzhou 511400, China.
Huanxing SuState Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3254-825X
University of Macau · MOGuangzhou First People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) disrupts normal brain function and is associated with high morbidity and fatality rates. TBI is characterized as mild, moderate or severe depending on its severity. The damage may be transient and limited to the dura matter, with only subtle changes in cerebral parenchyma, or life-threatening with obvious focal contusions, hematomas and edema. Blood vessels are often injured in TBI. Even in mild TBI, dysfunctional cerebral vascular repair may result in prolonged symptoms and poor outcomes. Various distinct types of cells participate in vascular repair after TBI. A better understanding of the cellular response and function in vascular repair can facilitate the development of new therapeutic strategies. In this review, we analyzed the mechanism of cerebrovascular impairment and the repercussions following various forms of TBI. We then discussed the role of distinct cell types in the repair of meningeal and parenchyma vasculature following TBI, including endothelial cells, endothelial progenitor cells, pericytes, glial cells (astrocytes and microglia), neurons, myeloid cells (macrophages and monocytes) and meningeal lymphatic endothelial cells. Finally, possible treatment techniques targeting these unique cell types for vascular repair after TBI are discussed.

Indexed as

AngiogenesisTraumatic brain injuryVascular repair

Identifiers

PMID37675267
PMCPMC10478165
OpenAlexW4386452616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.