ArticlePloS one2015
Time-course effect of electrical stimulation on nerve regeneration of diabetic rats.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in sciatic nerve regeneration: A review of contemporary techniques.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Advancements in stimulation therapies for peripheral nerve regeneration.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2024Review
- Early Intensive Neurorehabilitation in Traumatic Peripheral Nerve Injury-State of the Art.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Silicone rubber sealed channel induced self-healing of large bone defects: Where is the limit of self-healing of bone?Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2023Article
- Does Electrical Stimulation through Nerve Conduits Improve Peripheral Nerve Regeneration?-A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Techniques and graft materials for repairing peripheral nerve defects.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Transplantation of engineered exosomes derived from bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells ameliorate diabetic peripheral neuropathy under electrical stimulation.Bioactive materials · 2021Article
- Neuroskeletal Effects of Chronic Bioelectric Nerve Stimulation in Health and Diabetes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Effects of Electrical Stimulation on Peripheral Nerve Regeneration in a Silicone Rubber Conduit in Taxol-Treated Rats.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Bridging larger gaps in peripheral nerves using neural prosthetics and physical therapeutic agents.Neural regeneration research · 2019Article
- Endogenous automatic nerve discharge promotes nerve repair: an optimized animal model.Neural regeneration research · 2019Article
- A conductive sodium alginate and carboxymethyl chitosan hydrogel doped with polypyrrole for peripheral nerve regeneration.RSC advances · 2018Article
- Effects of Taxol on Regeneration in a Rat Sciatic Nerve Transection Model.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Review of Recent Advances in Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS).Current pain and headache reports · 2016Review
- The use of brief post-surgical low frequency electrical stimulation to enhance nerve regeneration in clinical practice.The Journal of physiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to promote nerve regeneration in rats with experimental diabetes induced using streptozotocin (STZ). However, the time-course effect of ES on nerve regeneration of diabetic animals has not been reported in previous studies. The present study attempted to examine the effect of different timing of ES after peripheral nerve transection in diabetic rats. METHODOLOGY/
findingsFifty Sprague-Dawley rats were used in the study. They were classified into five groups. STZ-induced diabetes was created in groups A to D. Normal animals in group E were used as the non-diabetic controls. The sciatic nerve was transected and repaired using a silicone rubber conduit across a 10-mm gap in all groups. Groups A to C received ES for 15 minutes every other day for 2 weeks. Stimulation was initiated on day 1 following the nerve repair for group A, day 8 for group B, and day 15 for group C. The diabetic control group D and the normal control group E received no ES. At 30 days after surgery in group A, histological evaluations showed a higher success percentage of regeneration across the 10-mm nerve gap, and the electrophysiological results showed significantly larger mean values of evoked muscle action potential area and amplitude of the reinnervated gastrocnemius muscle compared with group D. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: It is concluded that an immediate onset of ES may improve the functional recovery of large nerve defect in diabetic animals.
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.