Effects of tetramethylpyrazine treatment in a rat model of spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious disabling condition that leads to the loss of motor, sensory, and excretory functions, seriously affecting the quality of life of patients and imposing a heavy burden on the patient's family and society. There is currently a lack of effective treatments for...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of pharmacology 2023-04, Vol.945, p.175524-175524, Article 175524
Main Authors: Li, Gan, Sng, Kim Sia, Shu, Bing, Wang, Yong-jun, Yao, Min, Cui, Xue-jun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Antioxidation
Meta-analysis
Neurological recovery
Pyrazines - pharmacology
Pyrazines - therapeutic use
Quality of Life
Rats
Recovery of Function
Spinal Cord
Spinal Cord Injuries - drug therapy
Spinal cord injury
Systematic review
Tetramethylpyrazine
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious disabling condition that leads to the loss of motor, sensory, and excretory functions, seriously affecting the quality of life of patients and imposing a heavy burden on the patient's family and society. There is currently a lack of effective treatments for SCI. However, a large number of experimental studies have shown beneficial effects of tetramethylpyrazine (TMP). We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the effects of TMP on neurological and motor function recovery in rats with acute SCI. English (PubMed, Web of Science, and EMbase) and Chinese (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM) databases were searched for literature related to TMP treatment in rats with SCI published until October 2022. Two researchers independently read the included studies, extracted the data, and evaluated their quality. A total of 29 studies were included, and a risk of bias assessment revealed that the methodological quality of the included studies was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB; n = 429, pooled mean difference [MD] = 3.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67 to 4.22, p 
ISSN:0014-2999
1879-0712
DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.175524