Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42624965›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2026

NAD

Elle E M Scheijen, Naomi Veeningen, Femke Cornelissen, Niels Hellings, David M Wilson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Spinal cord, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Elle E M ScheijenNeurosciences, Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building C, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium. elle.scheijen@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5730-5225
Naomi VeeningenNeuroimmune Connections & Repair Lab, Department of Immunology and Infection, Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building C, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7816-023X
Femke CornelissenNeurosciences, Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building C, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Niels HellingsNeuroimmune Connections & Repair Lab, Department of Immunology and Infection, Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building C, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
David M WilsonNeurosciences, Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Building C, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium. david.wilson@uhasselt.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8945-0395

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation Flanders) G0H3716N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designNarrative review and data-based perspective

objectivesCompare the current literature on poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) polymerase (PARP) inhibition and NAD

methodsUsing a spinal cord contusion mouse model, a severe SCI was induced at the L1 spinal level in female C57Bl/6 J mice. 25 mg/kg PARP inhibitor (Veliparib), 750 mg/kg NR, or vehicle was administered intraperitoneally starting at 1 h post-injury (n = 13-18 mice per group), followed by daily treatments up to 8 days post-injury, and every other day thereafter until sacrifice (28 days post-injury). Functional recovery (by Basso Mouse Scale, BMS) and tissue-level effects were evaluated.

resultsFunctional recovery, lesion size (demyelinated (MBP), astrocyte (GFAP), and inflammatory (IBA1) area), and DNA damage load (γH2AX and PAR) did not improve with either Veliparib or NR treatment compared to vehicle-treated animals. Moreover, NR treatment decreased survival and increased astrogliosis in SCI mice compared to the vehicle control group.

conclusionsWithin the experimental paradigm, neither PARP inhibition nor NAD

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.