Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16796801›Full record

ReviewJournal of cellular and molecular medicine

Tissue engineered nerve constructs: where do we stand?

C T Chalfoun, G A Wirth, G R D Evans

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Nanotechnology, nanosurfaces and silicone gel breast implants: current aspects.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Nanotechnology and regenerative therapeutics in plastic surgery: The next frontier.Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2016
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C T ChalfounAesthetic and Plastic Surgery Institute, University of California - Irvine, Orange, 92868, USA.
G A Wirth
G R D Evans

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Driven by enormous clinical need, interest in peripheral nerve regeneration has become a prime focus of research and area of growth within the field of tissue engineering. While using autologous donor nerves for bridging peripheral defects remains today's gold standard, it remains associated with high donor site morbidity and lack of full recovery. This dictates research towards the development of biomimetic constructs as alternatives. Based on current concepts, this review summarizes various approaches including different extracellular matrices, scaffolds, and growth factors that have been shown to promote migration and proliferation of Schwann cells. Since neither of these concepts in isolation is enough, although each is gaining increased interest to promote nerve regeneration, various combinations will need to be identified to strike a harmonious balance. Additional factors that must be incorporated into tissue engineered nerve constructs are also unknown and warrant further research efforts. It seems that future directions may allow us to determine the "missing link".

Indexed as

Biomimetic MaterialsTissue EngineeringAnimalsCell ProliferationCells, CulturedExtracellular MatrixForecastingHumansModels, NeurologicalNerve Growth FactorsNerve RegenerationPeripheral Nerve InjuriesPeripheral NervesSchwann CellsNerve Growth Factors

Identifiers

PMID16796801
PMCPMC3933123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.