Evidence Hub

Leptin-induced neuroprotection in ischemic stroke: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis elucidating molecular pathways in preclinical animal models

S. Behrouzifar, H. Esmaily

Brain Injury, 2026

1,383 participants

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis critically evaluates preclinical evidence on leptin’s efficacy and mechanistic actions in rodent models of focal cerebral ischemia. Method Comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar (1995–2024) identified 17 eligible studies (n = 1,383 animals), following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42023461569). Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (SYRCLE tool) were conducted independently by dual reviewers. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results Leptin administration significantly reduced infarct volume (SMD = -2.76; 95% CI: −3.65 to −1.86; p < 0.001) and ameliorated neurological deficits (SMD = -4.37; 95% CI: −5.80 to −2.95; p < 0.001), with pronounced effects in murine models. Mechanistically, leptin mitigated apoptosis – indicated by lowered cleaved Caspase-3 and TUNEL-positive cells – and promoted the upregulation of proteins involved in neuroprotection, including BCL-2, p-STAT, TRPV1, and the leptin receptor. Conclusion Although this meta-analysis demonstrates the promising neuroprotective properties of leptin, the substantial heterogeneity among studies and the resulting lower certainty of evidence highlight the critical need for future research employing standardized methodologies, rigorous study designs, and sufficient statistical power to validate these findings and support their translation into clinical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 1,383 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free