Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 4.
Published in final edited form as: Brain Commun. 2019 Aug 6;1(1):fcz009. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcz009

Figure 4. Subgroup analyses reveal no difference in efficacy between divergent pathways, putative target or mode of delivery of intervention.

Figure 4

(A) Frequency of studies implementing therapeutic interventions that target the following pathways: AO, anti-oxidative stress; AA, anti-apoptosis; MT, metabolism; AI, anti-inflammation; MD, mitophagy/degradation; ETC, electron transport chain; CB, calcium buffering; EX, excitotoxicity. Each column shows studies demonstrating efficacy in blue and no efficacy in white. Two-way ANOVA shows no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). (B) Frequency of studies implementing interventions that specifically target mitochondria (MT) versus more generic cell-wide distribution (CWD). Each column shows studies demonstrating efficacy in blue and no efficacy in white. Chi2 demonstrates no statistically significant difference (P = 0.14). (C). Frequency of the mode of delivery of study interventions: PO, pharmaceutical oral; PIP, pharmaceutical intraperitoneal; PSC, pharmaceutical subcutaneous; PIV, pharmaceutical intravenous; CTS, cell transplant specific cell type indicated; CTU, cell transplant no specific cell type indicated; PCNS, pharmaceutical directly administered to central nervous system; GA, genetic intervention, all cells targeted; U, unknown/not stated. Each column shows studies demonstrating efficacy in blue and no efficacy in white. Two-way ANOVA shows no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). (D) Post hoc analysis performed to compare pharmaceutical oral (PO) versus all other modes of delivery grouped together. Chi2 demonstrates no statistically significant difference (P = 0.08).