IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0072659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-Analysis of Pre-Clinical Studies of Early Decompression in Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Battle of Time and Pressure

Author

Listed:
  • Peter E Batchelor
  • Taryn E Wills
  • Peta Skeers
  • Camila R Battistuzzo
  • Malcolm R Macleod
  • David W Howells
  • Emily S Sena

Abstract

Background: The use of early decompression in the management of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) remains contentious despite many pre-clinical studies demonstrating benefits and a small number of supportive clinical studies. Although the pre-clinical literature favours the concept of early decompression, translation is hindered by uncertainties regarding overall treatment efficacy and timing of decompression. Methods: We performed meta-analysis to examine the pre-clinical literature on acute decompression of the injured spinal cord. Three databases were utilised; PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Embase. Our inclusion criteria consisted of (i) the reporting of efficacy of decompression at various time intervals (ii) number of animals and (iii) the mean outcome and variance in each group. Random effects meta-analysis was used and the impact of study design characteristics assessed with meta-regression. Results: Overall, decompression improved behavioural outcome by 35.1% (95%CI 27.4-42.8; I2=94%, p

Suggested Citation

  • Peter E Batchelor & Taryn E Wills & Peta Skeers & Camila R Battistuzzo & Malcolm R Macleod & David W Howells & Emily S Sena, 2013. "Meta-Analysis of Pre-Clinical Studies of Early Decompression in Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Battle of Time and Pressure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0072659
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072659
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072659&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0072659?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hristo Todorov & Emily Searle-White & Susanne Gerber, 2020. "Applying univariate vs. multivariate statistics to investigate therapeutic efficacy in (pre)clinical trials: A Monte Carlo simulation study on the example of a controlled preclinical neurotrauma trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Jennifer A Hirst & Jeremy Howick & Jeffrey K Aronson & Nia Roberts & Rafael Perera & Constantinos Koshiaris & Carl Heneghan, 2014. "The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0072659. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.