ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2026
Minocycline in Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis of Preclinical and Clinical Evidence.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Minocycline as a tetracycline derivative agent with anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties, has been investigated in both experimental and clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of Minocycline in acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Major electronic databases were comprehensively searched to identify preclinical animal studies and human clinical studies evaluating minocycline, alone or in combination therapies, for acute traumatic SCI management. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools tailored to study design. Qualitative synthesis included all eligible studies, while quantitative synthesis was restricted to clinical studies reporting extractable effect estimates for neurological improvement. Results: A total of 9 studies met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Preclinical studies demonstrated consistent biological effects of minocycline on inflammatory markers, oxidative stress, and histopathological outcomes, particularly in combination therapies, although functional recovery with minocycline monotherapy was inconsistent. Clinical studies indicated that minocycline was generally well tolerated; however, most trials did not demonstrate statistically significant improvements in neurological or functional outcomes. Only two clinical studies provided suitable data for meta-analysis, yielding a pooled odds ratio of 1.70 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95-3.06) for neurological improvement, which did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that while minocycline exhibits promising biological activity and an acceptable safety profile in acute traumatic SCI, robust clinical efficacy has not been conclusively demonstrated. Well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome reporting are required to determine whether these biological effects translate into meaningful functional recovery.
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.