[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.5.76. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 1,611
Citations 0
Viewpoint
February 2016

Neuroprotection After Traumatic Brain Injury

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Spinal Cord Injury Research, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • 2Faculty of Heath, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
  • 3Spinal Cord Injury Division, Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
  • 4Department of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
JAMA Neurol. 2016;73(2):149-150. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.3627

Is research on traumatic brain injury (TBI) repeating the failures seen in studies on neuroprotection in stroke? Recent failures of pivotal randomized clinical trials on neuroprotection in TBI resemble the costly setbacks experienced by stroke investigators that resulted in the cessation of interventional pharmacological trials and withdrawal of investment by the pharmaceutical industry. Many hypotheses have been advanced to explain these translational failures, such as methodological failures leading to false-positive results in animal studies or false-negative results in clinical trials or that animal models might not sufficiently recapitulate human TBI. To combat translational nihilism about the failures of these trials, we intend to provide a constructive analysis of what could be learned to improve translational prediction of future trials on neuroprotection in TBI.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×