MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906303207 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.01103

Efficacy of Minocycline in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Rodent and Clinical Studies

2018· review· en· W2906303207 on OpenAlexaff
Zhao‐Fu Sheng, Yang Liu, Hongmin Li, Wei Zheng, Bin Xia, Xin Zhang, V. Wee Yong, Mengzhou Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMinocyclineStroke (engine)Clinical trialSubgroup analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePublication biasStrictly standardized mean differenceConfidence intervalPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207