Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23790730›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in biotechnology2013

Engineering peripheral nerve repair.

Laura M Marquardt, Shelly E Sakiyama-Elbert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in biotechnology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Machine intelligence for nerve conduit design and production.Journal of biological engineering · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Optically Pumped Magnetometers for Magneto-Myography to Study the Innervation of the Hand.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors.

Laura M MarquardtDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Shelly E Sakiyama-Elbert

Funding

THE EFFECTS OF GDNF ON PERIPHERAL NERVE REGENERATIONR01NS051706 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MACKINNON, SUSAN E, SAKIYAMA-ELBERT, SHELLY ELESE · 2006 to 2016
$4.0M
FIBRIN BASED SCAFFOLDS FOR SPINAL CORD INJURYR01NS051454 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI SAKIYAMA-ELBERT, SHELLY ELESE · 2005 to 2013
$2.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS051454NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS051706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current approaches for treating peripheral nerve injury have resulted in promising, yet insufficient functional recovery compared to the clinical standard of care, autologous nerve grafts. In order to design a construct that can match the regenerative potential of the autograft, all facets of nerve tissue must be incorporated in a combinatorial therapy. Engineered biomaterial scaffolds in the future will have to promote enhanced regeneration and appropriate reinnervation by targeting the highly sensitive response of regenerating nerves to their surrounding microenvironment.

Indexed as

Nerve RegenerationTissue EngineeringAnimalsAxonsBiocompatible MaterialsElectric StimulationGuided Tissue RegenerationHumansPeripheral Nerve InjuriesPeripheral NervesTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID23790730
PMCPMC3783565

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.