4.6 Article

A systematic review and meta-analysis of erythropoietin in experimental stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 961-968

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.267

Keywords

animal studies; experimental; focal ischemia; neuroprotection; neuroregeneration; trophic factors

Funding

  1. The Australian NHMRC
  2. The Swedish Research Council
  3. region of West Sweden
  4. ALF Funding Sources Goteborg
  5. Edit Jakobsson Foundation
  6. Elsa and Gustav Lindh Foundation
  7. Sten A Olsson foundation for Research and Culture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Erythropoietin (EPO) has shown promise as a neuroprotectant in animal models of ischemic stroke. EPO is thought not only to protect neurons from cell death, but also to promote regeneration after stroke. Here, we report a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of EPO in animal models of focal cerebral ischemia. Primary outcomes were infarct size and neurobehavioral outcome. Nineteen studies involving 346 animals for infarct size and 425 animals for neurobehavioral outcome met our inclusion criteria. Erythropoietin improved infarct size by 30.0% (95% CI: 21.3 to 38.8) and neurobehavioral outcome by 39.8% (33.7 to 45.9). Studies that randomized to treatment group or that blinded assessment of outcome showed lower efficacy. Erythropoietin was tested in animals with hypertension in no studies reporting infarct size and in 7.5% of the animals reporting neurobehavioral outcome. These findings show efficacy for EPO in experimental stroke, but when the impact of common sources of bias are considered, this efficacy falls, suggesting we may be overestimating its potential benefit. As common human co-morbidities may reduce therapeutic efficacy, broader testing to delineate the range of circumstances in which EPO works best would be beneficial. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2010) 30, 961-968; doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.267; published online 30 December 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available