SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of four immunomodulatory agents for acute spinal cord injury: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Design: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone (MP), erythropoietin (EPO), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and minocycline for the treatment of acute spinal cord injury (ASCI). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 15 June 2025. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies were eligible. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses compared MP, EPO, EPO plus MP, G-CSF, and minocycline. Treatment effects were reported as odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Model convergence and fit, heterogeneity, predictive intervals, and global and local inconsistency were evaluated. Follow-up-stratified and exploratory restriction analyses were performed where feasible. Formal comparison-level Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) assessment was not feasible; certainty was appraised qualitatively across its six domains. Results: Twenty comparative reports were included: nine randomized and 11 nonrandomized reports. For neurological grade improvement, G-CSF was associated with higher odds of improvement than the common control node (OR = 5.12, 95% CrI 1.15-32.42). Estimates for EPO (OR = 4.87, 95% CrI 0.44-135.90), EPO plus MP (OR = 3.44, 95% CrI 0.09-164.02), and MP (OR = 1.31, 95% CrI 0.30-5.72) were imprecise and included the null. For change in ASIA Motor Score, G-CSF had the largest point estimate (MD = 11.49, 95% CrI -0.44 to 23.49), followed by minocycline (MD = 6.83, -15.24-28.75), EPO (MD = 6.75, -13.16-26.42), and MP (MD = 2.28, -6.24-10.94); all credible intervals crossed zero. For overall adverse events, the estimate for MP was imprecise (OR = 1.13, 95% CrI 0.58-2.34), while the G-CSF effect was not reliably estimable because near-complete event occurrence produced a highly prior-sensitive posterior. Other safety estimates were imprecise. Conclusion: G-CSF showed a potential beneficial signal for neurological grade improvement. However, the limited evidence base, inclusion of nonrandomized and nonconcurrent comparisons, substantial heterogeneity, wide credible and predictive intervals, and uncertain transitivity preclude definitive conclusions about comparative efficacy or safety. Treatment rankings should be regarded as exploratory and do not establish the superiority of any intervention. Systematic Review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/, identifier CRD420251027856.
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.