Efficacy of Minocycline in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Rodent and Clinical Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of minocycline for the management of acute ischemic stroke. BACKGROUND While previous meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy of minocycline in the treatment of acute stroke, it was criticized for its methodology. We present a new systematic review which differs from previous meta-analysis by adding new outcomes, and include new studies. METHODS The authors performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Stroke Center, NIH’s Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal before June 2018. The data meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted according to Cochrane methodology. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random and fixed-effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. The meta-analyses were conducted using Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata software 12.0. RESULT For clinical studies, 4 trials with 201 patients in the minocycline group and 195 patients in the control group met the inclusion criteria; 3 were randomized trials. Results showed that the groups receiving minocycline were superior to the control group, with significant differences in the NIHSS scores (mean difference [MD], -2.75; 95% CI, -4.78, 0.27; p=0.03) and mRS scores (MD, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.27, -0.69; p<0.01), but not Barthel Index Score (MD, 9.04; 95% CI, -0.78, 18.07; p=0.07). For rodent experiments, 14 studies were included. Neurological severity scores (NSS) was significantly improved (MD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.64, -1.31; p<0.01) and infarct volume was obviously reduced (Std mean difference [SMD], -2.38; 95% CI, -3.40, -1.36; p<0.01) in the minocycline group. For infarct size, there was evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis of clinical trials and rodent experiments, minocycline appears as an effective therapeutic option for acute stroke.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".