Evidence Hub

Treatment with inhaled Argon: a systematic review of pre-clinical and clinical studies with meta-analysis on neuroprotective effect

G. Merigo, Gaetano Florio, Fabiana Madotto, Aurora Magliocca, I. Silvestri, F. Fumagalli, M. Cerrato, F. Motta et al.

EBioMedicine, 2024

12 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Argon (Ar) has been proposed as a potential therapeutic agent in multiple clinical conditions, specifically in organ protection. However, conflicting data on pre-clinical models, together with a great variability in Ar administration protocols and outcome assessments, have been reported. The aim of this study was to review evidence on treatment with Ar, with an extensive investigation on its neuroprotective effect, and to summarise all tested administration protocols. Methods Using the PubMed database, all existing pre-clinical and clinical studies on the treatment with Ar were systematically reviewed (registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7983D). Study titles and abstracts were screened, extracting data from relevant studies post full-text review. Exclusion criteria included absence of full text and non-English language. Furthermore, meta-analysis was also performed to assess Ar potential as neuroprotectant agent in different clinical conditions: cardiac arrest, traumatic brain injury, ischemic stroke, perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, subarachnoid haemorrhage. Standardised mean differences for neurological, cognitive and locomotor, histological, and physiological measures were evaluated, through appropriate tests, clinical, and laboratory variables. In vivo studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation tool, while in vitro studies underwent assessment with a tool…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in cell cultures (in vitro), 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.

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