Home › Research › Drug development
Statins and neuroprotection: a prescription to move the field forward
Wood WG, Eckert GP, Igbavboa U, Müller WE.. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2010-06-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
There is growing interest in the use of statins, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, for treating specific neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis) and possibly traumatic brain injury. Neither is there a consensus on the efficacy of statins in treating the aforementioned diseases nor are the mechanisms of the purported statin-induced neuroprotection well-understood. Part of the support for statin-induced neuroprotection comes from studies using animal models and cell culture. Important information has resulted from that work but there continues to be a lack of progress on basic issues pertaining to statins and brain that impedes advancement in understanding how statins alter brain function. For example, there are scant data on the pharmacokinetics of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins in brain, statin-induced neuroprotection versus cell death, and statins and brain isoprenoids. The purpose of this mini-review will be to examine those aforementioned issues and to identify directions of future research.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wood, W. G., Eckert, G. P., Igbavboa, U., & Müller, W. E. (2010). Statins and neuroprotection: a prescription to move the field forward. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05359.x
Vancouver
Wood WG, Eckert GP, Igbavboa U, Müller WE. Statins and neuroprotection: a prescription to move the field forward. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05359.x. PMID: 20633110.
BibTeX
@article{wood2010-20633110,
author = {Wood, W. G. and Eckert, G. P. and Igbavboa, U. and Müller, W. E.},
title = {{Statins and neuroprotection: a prescription to move the field forward}},
journal = {Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05359.x},
pmid = {20633110},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05359.x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- For example, there are scant data on the pharmacokinetics of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins in brain, statin-induced neuroprotection versus cell death, and statins and brain isoprenoids.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20633110) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development from nearby years
Also tagged “prescription”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prescription”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.