SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and neuroprotective effects of tetramethylpyrazine in animal models of spinal cord injury: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and exploratory machine-learning study.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a severe neurological disorder characterized by persistent motor dysfunction and complex secondary injury processes. Tetramethylpyrazine (TMP) has shown potential neuroprotective effects in experimental SCI; however, the overall efficacy and factors associated with its therapeutic effects remain unclear. This study systematically evaluated the efficacy of TMP in animal models of SCI and explored potential efficacy-related experimental factors using machine-learning methods. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases were searched for controlled animal studies investigating TMP treatment in SCI. Hedges' g and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and assessments of small-study effects were performed where sufficient data were available. An exploratory XGBoost model combined with SHAP analysis was used to evaluate study-level characteristics potentially associated with BBB effect sizes. Model performance was assessed using repeated 10-fold cross-validation with 20 repetitions, and feature-importance stability was evaluated using 1,000 bootstrap resamples. Results: Forty-two animal studies were included. Compared with control treatment, TMP significantly improved locomotor recovery, with progressively greater improvements in BBB scores from day 1 to day 28 after injury. TMP also improved inclined-plane performance at most evaluated time points. Biochemical analyses indicated that TMP alleviated oxidative stress by reducing malondialdehyde levels and increasing superoxide dismutase activity. TMP treatment was also associated with reduced concentrations of several pro-inflammatory cytokines and improvements in apoptosis-related outcomes. Repeated 10-fold cross-validation showed poor predictive performance (median R Conclusion: The available preclinical evidence indicates that TMP promotes locomotor recovery and exerts antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects in animal models of SCI. The exploratory machine-learning analysis did not demonstrate reliable predictive performance, and the observed feature-importance patterns should be regarded as hypothesis-generating. Further standardized animal experiments and well-designed translational studies are required. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261459838, identifier CRD420261459838.
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.