Cited by 86Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchNeurological Disorders and Treatments

Pharmacologic neuroprotection for functional outcomes after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the clinical literature

Open access
Gruenbaum, Shaun E., Zlotnik, Alexander, Gruenbaum, Benjamin F., Hersey, Denise, Bilotta, Federico·2016·CNS Drugs

Abstract

Introduction Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. The deleterious effects of secondary brain injury may be attenuated by early pharmacological therapy in the emergency room and intensive care unit (ICU). Current medical management of acute TBI is primarily supportive, aimed at reducing intracranial pressure (ICP) and optimizing cerebral perfusion. There are no pharmacological therapies to date that have been unequivocally demonstrated to improve neurological outcomes after TBI. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the recent clinical studies from January 2013 through November 2015 that investigated neuroprotective functional outcomes of pharmacological agents after TBI. Methods The following databases were searched for relevant studies: MEDLINE (OvidSP January Week 1, 2013-November Week 2 2015), Embase (OvidSP 2013 January 1-2015 November 24), and the unindexed material in PubMed (National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health [NLM/NIH]). This systematic review included only full-length clinical studies and case series that included at least five patients and were published in the English language. Only studies that examined functional clinical outcomes were included. Results Twenty-five of 527 studies met our inclusion criteria, which investigated 15 independent pharmacological therapies. Eight of these therapies demonstrated possible neuroprotective properties and improved functional outcomes, of which five were investigated with randomized clinical trials: statins, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), Enzogenol, Cerebrolysin, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitor (VAS203). Three pharmacological agents did not demonstrate neuroprotective effects, and four agents had mixed results. Conclusions While there is currently no single pharmacological therapy that will unequivocally improve clinical outcomes after TBI, several agents have demonstrated promising clinical benefits for specific TBI patients and should be investigated further.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40263-016-0355-2

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No effective interventions are available to improve recovery following TBI.

    “To date, no effective interventions are available to improve recovery following TBI (42–44).”

    From The Inflammatory Continuum of Traumatic Brain Injury and Alzheimer’s Disease (2018) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Conclusions state that no single pharmacological therapy has been shown to unequivocally improve clinical outcomes after TBI. The claim extends that narrower, qualified finding to all interventions; the Results also report functional-outcome benefits for eight therapies in the studies reviewed. Page numbers were not supplied for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gruenbaum, S. E., Zlotnik, A., Gruenbaum, B. F., Hersey, D., & Bilotta, F.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
Corresponding author
Bilotta, Federico
Venue
CNS Drugs
Published
2016-06-23
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
791-806
ISSN
  • 1172-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1934
OpenAlex
W2464572702
Cited by
86
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CNS Drugs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Cineca Institutional Research Information System (Tor Vergata University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000142)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM086287)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, neuroprotection, pharmacotherapy, functional outcome, secondary brain injury, statins, N-acetylcysteine, Cerebrolysin, nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Intracranial Pressure, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Neuroprotective Agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review