4.6 Review

Progesterone treatment for experimental stroke: an individual animal meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1362-1372

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2013.120

Keywords

individual animal data; meta-analysis; neuroprotection; progesterone; steroid hormones; systematic review

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom [G800129]
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10003] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Preclinical studies suggest progesterone is neuroprotective after cerebral ischemia. The gold standard for assessing intervention effects across studies within and between subgroups is to use meta-analysis based on individual animal data (IAD). Preclinical studies of progesterone in experimental stroke were identified from searches of electronic databases and reference lists. Corresponding authors of papers of interest were contacted to obtain IAD and, if unavailable, summary data were obtained from the publication. Data are given as standardized mean differences (SMDs, continuous data) or odds ratios (binary data), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). In an unadjusted analysis of IAD and summary data, progesterone reduced standardized lesion volume (SMD 0.766, 95% CI 1.173 to 0.358, P<0.001). Publication bias was apparent on visual inspection of a Begg's funnel plot on lesion volume and statistically using Egger's test (P = 0.001). Using individual animal data alone, progesterone was associated with an increase in death in adjusted analysis (odds ratio 2.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.97, P = 0.020). Although progesterone significantly reduced lesion volume, it also appeared to increase the incidence of death after experimental stroke, particularly in young ovariectomized female animals. Experimental studies must report the effect of interactions on death and on modifiers, such as age and sex.

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