Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25621102›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of stem cells2015

Augmenting peripheral nerve regeneration using stem cells: A review of current opinion.

Neil G Fairbairn, Amanda M Meppelink, Joanna Ng-Glazier, Mark A Randolph, Jonathan M Winograd

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of stem cells, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A review of new developments in peripheral nerve regeneration.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Neil G FairbairnNeil G Fairbairn, Amanda M Meppelink, Joanna Ng-Glazier, Mark A Randolph, Jonathan M Winograd, Department of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Amanda M MeppelinkNeil G Fairbairn, Amanda M Meppelink, Joanna Ng-Glazier, Mark A Randolph, Jonathan M Winograd, Department of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Joanna Ng-GlazierNeil G Fairbairn, Amanda M Meppelink, Joanna Ng-Glazier, Mark A Randolph, Jonathan M Winograd, Department of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Mark A RandolphNeil G Fairbairn, Amanda M Meppelink, Joanna Ng-Glazier, Mark A Randolph, Jonathan M Winograd, Department of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Jonathan M WinogradNeil G Fairbairn, Amanda M Meppelink, Joanna Ng-Glazier, Mark A Randolph, Jonathan M Winograd, Department of Plastic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outcomes following peripheral nerve injury remain frustratingly poor. The reasons for this are multifactorial, although maintaining a growth permissive environment in the distal nerve stump following repair is arguably the most important. The optimal environment for axonal regeneration relies on the synthesis and release of many biochemical mediators that are temporally and spatially regulated with a high level of incompletely understood complexity. The Schwann cell (SC) has emerged as a key player in this process. Prolonged periods of distal nerve stump denervation, characteristic of large gaps and proximal injuries, have been associated with a reduction in SC number and ability to support regenerating axons. Cell based therapy offers a potential therapy for the improvement of outcomes following peripheral nerve reconstruction. Stem cells have the potential to increase the number of SCs and prolong their ability to support regeneration. They may also have the ability to rescue and replenish populations of chromatolytic and apoptotic neurons following axotomy. Finally, they can be used in non-physiologic ways to preserve injured tissues such as denervated muscle while neuronal ingrowth has not yet occurred. Aside from stem cell type, careful consideration must be given to differentiation status, how stem cells are supported following transplantation and how they will be delivered to the site of injury. It is the aim of this article to review current opinions on the strategies of stem cell based therapy for the augmentation of peripheral nerve regeneration.

Indexed as

AugmentationPeripheral nerveRegenerationStem cells

Identifiers

PMID25621102
PMCPMC4300921

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.