Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35896511›Full record

SynthesisCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2022

Determination of significant parameters in remote ischemic postconditioning for ischemic stroke in experimental models: A systematic review and meta-analysis study.

Kezhou Liu, Zhengting Cai, Quanwei Zhang, Jiatong He, Yinuo Cheng, Shaonong Wei, Mengjie Yin

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kezhou LiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Automation (Artificial Intelligence), Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5235-7357
Zhengting CaiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Automation (Artificial Intelligence), Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0350-3247
Quanwei ZhangSchool of Management, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.
Jiatong HeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Automation (Artificial Intelligence), Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.
Yinuo ChengDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Automation (Artificial Intelligence), Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.
Shaonong WeiHDU-ITMO Joint Institute, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.
Mengjie YinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, School of Automation (Artificial Intelligence), Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China.
Hangzhou Dianzi University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review studies using remote ischemia postconditioning (RIPostC) for ischemic stroke in experimental models and obtain factors that significantly influence treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsPeer-reviewed studies were identified and selected based on the eligibility criteria, followed by extraction of data on potentially influential factors related to model preparation, postconditioning, and measure time based on outcome measures including infarct size, neurological scales, and cell tests with autophagy, apoptosis, normal-neuron, and damaged-neuron counting. Then, all data were preprocessed, grouped, and meta-analyzed with the indicator of the standardized mean difference.

resultsFifty-seven studies with 224 experiments (91 for infarct size, 92 for neurological scales, and 41 for cell-level tests) were included. There was little statistical difference between different model preparations, treated body parts, number of treatments, and sides. And treatment effect was generally a positive correlation with the duration of conditioning time to stroke onset with exceptions at some time points. Based on infarct size, the number of cycles per treatment, duration of occlusion, and release per cycle showed significant differences. Combined with the effect sizes by other measures, the occlusion/release duration of 8-10 min per cycle is better than 5 min, and three cycles per treatment were most frequently used with good effects. Effect also varied when measuring at different times, showing statistical differences in infarct size and most neurological scales. RIPostC is confirmed as an effective therapeutic intervention for ischemic stroke, while the RIPostC-mediated autophagy level being activated or inhibited remained conflicting.

conclusionsConditioning time, number of cycles per treatment, duration of occlusion, and release per cycle were found to influence the treatment effects of RIPostC significantly. More studies on the relevant influential factors and autophagy mechanisms are warranted.

Indexed as

Ischemic PostconditioningIschemic StrokeStrokeAutophagyHumansInfarctionexperimental modelsischemiameta-analysisremote ischemic postconditioningstroke

Identifiers

PMID35896511
PMCPMC9437239
OpenAlexW4288068644

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.