IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0071317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Hypothermia in Animal Models of Spinal Cord Injury

Author

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

Abstract

Background: Therapeutic hypothermia is a clinically useful neuroprotective therapy for cardiac arrest and neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and may potentially be useful for the treatment of other neurological conditions including traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). The pre-clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of hypothermia in acute SCI broadly utilise either systemic hypothermia or cooling regional to the site of injury. The literature has not been uniformly positive with conflicting studies of varying quality, some performed decades previously. Methods: In this study, we systematically review and meta-analyse the literature to determine the efficacy of systemic and regional hypothermia in traumatic SCI, the experimental conditions influencing this efficacy, and the influence of study quality on outcome. Three databases were utilised; PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Embase. Our inclusion criteria consisted of the (i) reporting of efficacy of hypothermia on functional outcome (ii) number of animals and (iii) mean outcome and variance in each group. Results: Systemic hypothermia improved behavioural outcomes by 24.5% (95% CI 10.2 to 38.8) and a similar magnitude of improvement was seen across a number of high quality studies. The overall behavioural improvement with regional hypothermia was 26.2%, but the variance was wide (95% CI −3.77 to 56.2). This result may reflect a preponderance of positive low quality data, although a preferential effect of hypothermia in ischaemic models of injury may explain some of the disparate data. Sufficient heterogeneity was present between studies of regional hypothermia to reveal a number of factors potentially influencing efficacy, including depth and duration of hypothermia, animal species, and neurobehavioural assessment. However, these factors could reflect the influence of earlier lower quality literature. Conclusion: Systemic hypothermia appears to be a promising potential method of treating acute SCI on the basis of meta-analysis of the pre-clinical literature and the results of high quality animal studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter E Batchelor & Peta Skeers & Ana Antonic & Taryn E Wills & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod & Emily S Sena, 2013. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Hypothermia in Animal Models of Spinal Cord Injury," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0071317
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071317
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071317&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0071317?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily S Sena & H Bart van der Worp & Philip M W Bath & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Bero, 2018. "Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-4, April.
    2. Gerben ter Riet & Daniel A Korevaar & Marlies Leenaars & Peter J Sterk & Cornelis J F Van Noorden & Lex M Bouter & René Lutter & Ronald P Oude Elferink & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-5, September.
    3. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Jenny T van der Steen & Cornelis A van den Bogert & Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet & Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani & René H J Otten & Gerben ter Riet & Lex M Bouter, 2018. "Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Jonathan Kimmelman & Alex John London, 2011. "Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    8. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    9. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Catriona J MacCallum, 2010. "Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-2, June.
    11. Valerie C Henderson & Jonathan Kimmelman & Dean Fergusson & Jeremy M Grimshaw & Dan G Hackam, 2013. "Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    12. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Tugce Yildizoglu & Jan-Marek Weislogel & Farhan Mohammad & Edwin S-Y Chan & Pryseley N Assam & Adam Claridge-Chang, 2015. "Estimating Information Processing in a Memory System: The Utility of Meta-analytic Methods for Genetics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-27, December.
    15. Sven Kepes & Michael A McDaniel, 2015. "The Validity of Conscientiousness Is Overestimated in the Prediction of Job Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    16. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    17. Adriane Fugh-Berman, 2013. "How Basic Scientists Help the Pharmaceutical Industry Market Drugs," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-5, November.
    18. Susanne Wieschowski & Hans Laser & Emily S Sena & André Bleich & René Tolba & Daniel Strech, 2020. "Attitudes towards animal study registries and their characteristics: An online survey of three cohorts of animal researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Lucile Vogt & Thomas S Reichlin & Christina Nathues & Hanno Würbel, 2016. "Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, December.
    20. Jonathan A Eisen & Emma Ganley & Catriona J MacCallum, 2014. "Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, January.

    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:pone00:0071317. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.