Efficacy and Safety of Dopamine Agonists in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the intensive care unit, dopamine agonists (DA) have been used in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients to augment or accelerate cognitive recovery and rehabilitation. However, the efficacy and safety of DA in this population is not well established. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the clinical efficacy and safety of DA in patients with TBI. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, comparing DA to either placebo, standard treatment, or another active comparator. There was no restriction for age, date, or language of publication. Sensitivity analyses were planned to evaluate the potential effect of timing of TBI, age, drugs, and year of publication on efficacy. Among the 790 citations identified, 20 RCTs evaluating methylphenidate, amantadine, and bromocriptine were eligible. Significant clinical heterogeneity was observed between and within studies, which precluded any pooling of data. Efficacy outcomes included mainly neuropsychological measures of cognitive functioning. A total of 76 different neuropsychological tests were used, but most of them (59%) only once. Only 5 studies systematically assessed safety. No trend could be drawn from the analysis of efficacy and safety. Important sources of bias in the studies were of major concern. Considering the absence of consensus regarding clinical outcome, the lack of safety assessment, and the high risk of bias in the included trials, more research is warranted before DA can be recommended in critically ill TBI patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.058 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".