SynthesisPloS one2023
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of glibenclamide in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The hazards of chasing subgroups in neutral stroke trials.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating stroke with many mechanisms of injury. Edema worsens outcome and can lead to mortality after ICH. Glibenclamide (GLC), a sulfonylurea 1- transient receptor potential melastatin 4 (Sur1-Trpm4) channel blocker, has been shown to attenuate edema in ischemic stroke models, raising the possibility of benefit in ICH. This meta-analysis synthesizes current pre-clinical (rodent) literature regarding the efficacy of post-ICH GLC administration (vs. vehicle controls) on behaviour (i.e., neurological deficit, motor, and memory outcomes), edema, hematoma volume, and injury volume. Six studies (5 in rats and 1 in mice) were included in our meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration = CRD42021283614). GLC significantly improved behaviour (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.63, [-1.16, -0.09], n = 70-74) and reduced edema (SMD = -0.91, [-1.64, -0.18], n = 70), but did not affect hematoma volume (SMD = 0.0788, [-0.5631, 0.7207], n = 18-20), or injury volume (SMD = 0.2892, [-0.4950, 1.0734], n = 24). However, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Findings were conflicted with 2 negative and 4 positive reports, and Egger regressions indicated missing negative edema data (p = 0.0001), and possible missing negative behavioural data (p = 0.0766). Experimental quality assessed via the SYRCLE and CAMARADES checklists was concerning, as most studies demonstrated high risks of bias. Studies were generally low-powered (e.g., average n = 14.4 for behaviour), and future studies should employ sample sizes of 41 to detect our observed effect size in behaviour and 33 to detect our observed effect in edema. Overall, missing negative studies, low study quality, high risk of bias, and incomplete attention to key recommendations (e.g., investigating female, aged, and co-morbid animals) suggest that further high-powered confirmatory studies are needed before conclusive statements about GLC's efficacy in ICH can be made, and before further clinical trials are performed.
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.