Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24243342›Full record

ReviewMolecular neurobiology2014

In vitro and in vivo neuronal electrotaxis: a potential mechanism for restoration?

Ali Jahanshahi, Lisa-Maria Schönfeld, Evi Lemmens, Sven Hendrix, Yasin Temel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular neurobiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Emerging Trends in Neuromodulation for Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Ali JahanshahiDepartment of Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands, a.jahanshahianvar@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Lisa-Maria Schönfeld
Evi Lemmens
Sven Hendrix
Yasin Temel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical brain stimulation used to treat a variety of neurological and psychiatric diseases is entering a new period. The technique is well established and the potential complications are well known and generally manageable. Recent studies demonstrated that electrical fields (EFs) can enhance neuroplasticity-related processes. EFs applied in the physiological range induce migration of different neural cell types from different species in vitro. There are some evidences that also the speed and directedness of cell migration are enhanced by EFs. However, it is still unclear how electrical signals from the extracellular space are translated into intracellular actions resulting in the so-called electrotaxis phenomenon. Here, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of the data on responses of cells to electrical stimulation and the relation to functional recovery.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainCell MovementElectrical SynapsesExtracellular FluidHumansIntracellular FluidNeuronsSignal Transduction

Identifiers

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.