The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recommendations for Standards Regarding Preclinical Neuroprotective and Restorative Drug Development
Open accessAbstract
Abstract —The plethora of failed clinical trials with neuroprotective drugs for acute ischemic stroke have raised justifiable concerns about how best to proceed for the future development of such interventions. Preclinical testing of neuroprotective drugs is an important aspect of assessing their therapeutic potential, but guidelines concerning how to perform preclinical development of purported neuroprotective drugs for acute ischemic stroke are lacking. This conference of academicians and industry representatives was convened to suggest such guidelines for the preclinical evaluation of neuroprotective drugs and to recommend to potential clinical investigators the data they should review to reassure themselves that a particular neuroprotective drug has a reasonable chance to succeed in an appropriately designed clinical trial. Without rigorous, robust, and detailed preclinical evaluation, it is unlikely that novel neuroprotective drugs will prove to be effective when tested in large, time-consuming, and expensive clinical trials. Additionally, similar recommendations are provided for drugs with the potential to enhance recovery after acute ischemic stroke, a burgeoning new field with great potential but little currently available data. The suggestions contained in this document are meant to serve as overall guidelines that must be adapted to the individual characteristics related to particular drugs and their preclinical and clinical development needs.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Acute Ischemic Stroke
(1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199512143332401 · Cited by 11,654
Nudo, R. J., Wise, B. M., SiFuentes, F., & Milliken, G. W. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.272.5269.1791 · Cited by 1,911
Cited by
Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y., & Du, L. (2015) · Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1111/jebm.12141 · Cited by 2,082
Ma, L.-L., Wang, Y.-Y., Yang, Z.-H., Huang, D., Weng, H., & Zeng, X.-T. (2020) · Military Medical Research · doi:10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8 · Cited by 1,648
Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?
van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., Sena, E. S., Porritt, M. J., Rewell, S., O'Collins, V., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 · Cited by 1,354
Update of the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable Preclinical Recommendations
Fisher, M., Feuerstein, G., Howells, D. W., Hurn, P. D., Kent, T. A., Savitz, S. I., & Lo, E. H. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.541128 · Cited by 1,352
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
Landis, S. C., Amara, S. G., Asadullah, K., Austin, C. P., Blumenstein, R., Bradley, E. W., Crystal, R. G., Darnell, R. B., Ferrante, R. J., Fillit, H., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11556 · Cited by 1,196
Metadata
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2752-2758
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2112646710
- Cited by
- 1,251
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recommendations for Standards Regarding Preclinical Neuroprotective and Restorative Drug Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.30.12.2752
- The paper
- Recommendations for Standards Regarding Preclinical Neuroprotective and Restorative Drug Development. (1999). Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.30.12.2752
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
