ReviewFrontiers in neurology2026
Research progress of remote ischemic conditioning in hemorrhagic stroke.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a noninvasive, safe, and well-tolerated non-pharmacological treatment that has shown application prospects in the field of ischemic stroke. However, its application in hemorrhagic stroke is still at an early stage, the mechanism has not been fully elucidated, and clinical evidence is relatively scarce. This review found that for ICH, the mechanism of RIC may involve coordinated metabolic and immune pathways. Clinical trials have confirmed its safety, but the efficacy conclusions are inconsistent: studies involving interventions in the subacute phase have shown the potential to promote hematoma resolution, while studies involving interventions in the ultra-early phase have failed to show improvements in functional outcomes. For subarachnoid hemorrhage, the research is more preliminary, and there is no randomized controlled trial (RCT). The underlying mechanisms are thought to involve immune inflammation and vascular reactivity, while existing pilot studies have mainly focused on verifying safety rather than efficacy. In conclusion, RIC is safe when applied to hemorrhagic stroke, but its therapeutic effectiveness has not been demonstrated. Significant gaps remain, including uncertainty about the optimal timing and dosing regimens for interventions and the lack of large, multicenter trials. Future research should focus on identifying biomarkers, standardizing treatment protocols, and conducting high-quality RCTs.
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.