Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Clinical Trials Targeting Secondary Damage after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

Khaing ZZ., Chen JY., Safarians G., Ezubeik S., Pedroncelli N., Duquette RD.

Clinical Trial on Spinal Cord Injury, Chronic Inflammation, published in Int J Mol Sci (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Clinical Trial
Journal
Int J Mol Sci (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36835233
PMCID
PMC9960771
DOI
10.3390/ijms24043824
Citations
31

Abstract (original English)

Spinal cord injury (SCI) often causes loss of sensory and motor function resulting in a significant reduction in quality of life for patients. Currently, no therapies are available that can repair spinal cord tissue. After the primary SCI, an acute inflammatory response induces further tissue damage in a process known as secondary injury. Targeting secondary injury to prevent additional tissue damage during the acute and subacute phases of SCI represents a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes. Here, we review clinical trials of neuroprotective therapeutics expected to mitigate secondary injury, focusing primarily on those in the last decade. The strategies discussed are broadly categorized as acute-phase procedural/surgical interventions, systemically delivered pharmacological agents, and cell-based therapies. In addition, we summarize the potential for combinatorial therapies and considerations.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence
Spinal CordHumansSpinal Cord InjuriesNeuroprotective AgentsQuality of LifeClinical Trials as Topic

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research