Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21660979›Full record

ArticleMuscle & nerve2011

Acellular nerve allografts in peripheral nerve regeneration: a comparative study.

Amy M Moore, Matthew MacEwan, Katherine B Santosa, Kristofer E Chenard, Wilson Z Ray, Daniel A Hunter, Susan E Mackinnon, Philip J Johnson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Muscle & nerve, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 225 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ongoing Clinical Challenges in Nerve Surgery (Nerve SPACE 2025).Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

30 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy M MooreDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8238, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Matthew MacEwan
Katherine B Santosa
Kristofer E Chenard
Wilson Z Ray
Daniel A Hunter
Susan E Mackinnon
Philip J Johnson
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

NERVE ALLOTRANSPLANTATION FOR TRAUMATIC NERVE INJURYR01NS033406 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MACKINNON, SUSAN E · 1994 to 2011
$5.3M
NINDS NIH HHS 5R01NS033406NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS033406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProcessed nerve allografts offer a promising alternative to nerve autografts in the surgical management of peripheral nerve injuries where short deficits exist.

methodsThree established models of acellular nerve allograft (cold-preserved, detergent-processed, and AxoGen-processed nerve allografts) were compared with nerve isografts and silicone nerve guidance conduits in a 14-mm rat sciatic nerve defect.

resultsAll acellular nerve grafts were superior to silicone nerve conduits in support of nerve regeneration. Detergent-processed allografts were similar to isografts at 6 weeks postoperatively, whereas AxoGen-processed and cold-preserved allografts supported significantly fewer regenerating nerve fibers. Measurement of muscle force confirmed that detergent-processed allografts promoted isograft-equivalent levels of motor recovery 16 weeks postoperatively. All acellular allografts promoted greater amounts of motor recovery compared with silicone conduits.

conclusionThese findings provide evidence that differential processing for removal of cellular constituents in preparing acellular nerve allografts affects recovery in vivo.

Indexed as

AnimalsMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthNerve RegenerationRandom AllocationRatsRats, Inbred LewSciatic NerveTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation, HomologousTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21660979
PMCPMC3136642
OpenAlexW2018117162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.