Proof once again that the stroke medical world is totally dysfunctional. These systematic reviews are a complete waste of time. As research comes in it should be the responsibility of the researchers to update the existing knowledge base of that research in that publicly available database of stroke research and protocols. Reviews like this would never need to occur.
Research back to May 2012 proves how fucking incompetent your doctor and stroke hospital are. Why are you allowing such incompetence? Do you never ask your doctor what was the last research applied in their hospital?
- minocycline (12 posts)
Efficacy of Minocycline in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Rodent and Clinical Studies
Zhaofu Sheng1,2, 
Yang Liu1,2, 
Hongmin Li1,2, Wei Zheng1,2, Bin Xia1,2, Xin Zhang1,2, 
V. Wee Yong3,4 and 
Mengzhou Xue1,2*- 1The Department of Cerebrovascular Diseases, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
- 2The Henan Medical Key Laboratory of Translational Cerebrovascular Diseases, Zhengzhou, China
- 3Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
- 4Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of minocycline for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.
Background: While there have been
meta-analysis that surveyed the efficacy of minocycline in the treatment
of acute stroke, they have some methodological limitations. We
performed a new systematic review which was distinct from previous one
by adding new outcomes and including new studies.
Methods: Document retrieval was
executed through PubMed, 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 Jan 2018. The data meeting the inclusion criteria were
extracted. Before meta-analysis, publication bias and heterogeneity of
included studies were surveyed. Random and fixed-effects models were
employed to calculate pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals
(CIs). Additionally, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were implemented.
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. At
the end of 90-day follow up or discharge day, 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. Heterogeneity among the studies was proved to exist for infarct volume (Chi2 = 116.12, p < 0.01; I2 = 0.89) but not for other variables.
Conclusions: Based on the results in our study, minocycline appears as an effective therapeutic option for acute ischemic stroke.
No comments:
Post a Comment