ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings2015
Optical stimulation for restoration of motor function after spinal cord injury.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Presymptomatic targeted circuit manipulation for ameliorating Huntington's disease pathogenesis.iScience · 2025Article
- Epidural Electrical Stimulation for Functional Recovery in Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- Presymptomatic Targeted Circuit Manipulation for Ameliorating Huntington's Disease Pathogenesis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Improved Locomotor Recovery in a Rat Model of Spinal Cord Injury by BioLuminescent-OptoGenetic (BL-OG) Stimulation with an Enhanced Luminopsin.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Restoring Sensorimotor Function Through Neuromodulation After Spinal Cord Injury: Progress and Remaining Challenges.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Recent advances in nanotherapeutic strategies for spinal cord injury repair.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2019Review
- On the development of optical peripheral nerve interfaces.Neural regeneration research · 2019Review
- Imaging of electrical activity in small diameter fibers of the murine peripheral nerve with virally-delivered GCaMP6f.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Methane Suppresses Microglial Activation Related to Oxidative, Inflammatory, and Apoptotic Injury during Spinal Cord Injury in Rats.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2017Article
- Epidural optogenetics for controlled analgesia.Molecular pain · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spinal cord injury can be defined as a loss of communication between the brain and the body due to disrupted pathways within the spinal cord. Although many promising molecular strategies have emerged to reduce secondary injury and promote axonal regrowth, there is still no effective cure, and recovery of function remains limited. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) represents a strategy developed to restore motor function without the need for regenerating severed spinal pathways. Despite its technological success, however, FES has not been widely integrated into the lives of spinal cord injury survivors. In this review, we briefly discuss the limitations of existing FES technologies. Additionally, we discuss how optogenetics, a rapidly evolving technique used primarily to investigate select neuronal populations within the brain, may eventually be used to replace FES as a form of therapy for functional restoration after spinal cord injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.