Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19698073›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurotrauma2010

Biomaterial design strategies for the treatment of spinal cord injuries.

Karin S Straley, Cheryl Wong Po Foo, Sarah C Heilshorn

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurotrauma, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 353 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karin S StraleyChemical Engineering Department, Stanford University, Stanford, California 4305-4045, USA.
Cheryl Wong Po Foo
Sarah C Heilshorn
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The highly debilitating nature of spinal cord injuries has provided much inspiration for the design of novel biomaterials that can stimulate cellular regeneration and functional recovery. Many experts agree that the greatest hope for treatment of spinal cord injuries will involve a combinatorial approach that integrates biomaterial scaffolds, cell transplantation, and molecule delivery. This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of biomaterial-scaffold design strategies currently being applied to the development of nerve guidance channels and hydrogels that more effectively stimulate spinal cord tissue regeneration. To enhance the regenerative capacity of these two scaffold types, researchers are focusing on optimizing the mechanical properties, cell-adhesivity, biodegradability, electrical activity, and topography of synthetic and natural materials, and are developing mechanisms to use these scaffolds to deliver cells and biomolecules. Developing scaffolds that address several of these key design parameters will lead to more successful therapies for the regeneration of spinal cord tissue.

Indexed as

Drug DesignAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyDrug Delivery SystemsGrowth ConesHumansNerve RegenerationSpinal Cord InjuriesTissue ScaffoldsTissue TransplantationBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID19698073
PMCPMC2924783
OpenAlexW1990228542

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.