ReviewCureus2025
Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Perispinal Etanercept for Post-Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke remains a leading cause of long-term disability in adults, with many survivors experiencing persistent neurological and functional deficits. Conventional rehabilitation offers limited benefit once recovery plateaus. Biological therapies targeting chronic mechanisms of neural dysfunction, such as perispinal etanercept (PSE), a tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitor, have been proposed as potential alternatives. This systematic review evaluates the safety and effectiveness of PSE for neurological recovery in adults with chronic post-stroke deficits. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science identified human studies assessing PSE in stroke ≥six months post-event. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2), Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. Eligible studies included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, and case-based reports describing neurological, functional, cognitive, or safety outcomes. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: two randomised controlled trials, one large observational cohort, one case series, and one case report. The available evidence showed variable outcomes. Some studies reported short-term improvements in pain and motor function, whereas others found no significant overall functional or quality-of-life gains. Reported benefits, when observed, were typically domain-specific and not consistently sustained. Treatment was well tolerated, with no major safety concerns reported. Robust, large-scale trials are still needed to establish consistent functional benefits and long-term efficacy. Future research should focus on optimising treatment protocols and identifying responsive patient phenotypes through neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers. Well-designed multicenter trials with standardised stroke-specific endpoints and extended follow-up are essential to determine the true therapeutic value of PSE before routine clinical adoption.
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.