ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
Mean Arterial Pressure Augmentation for Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Neurological Recovery and Mortality.
Review in Global spine journal, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignSystematic review.ObjectivesMaintenance of mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 85-90 mmHg after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is widely recommended, but supporting evidence is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether MAP augmentation improves outcomes after SCI.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched through January 2026. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Prespecified cohort-level analyses compared standard (≥65 mmHg) with augmented MAP targets (≥85 mmHg). Weighted linear meta-regression explored dose-response relationships between achieved MAP and primary outcomes.ResultsThirty-three studies comprising 3535 patients were included. Neurological improvement occurred in 31.4% and 37.6% of patients subjected to standard and augmented MAP, respectively (
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.