Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26491662›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2015

Past, Present, and Future of Nerve Conduits in the Treatment of Peripheral Nerve Injury.

Aikeremujiang Muheremu, Qiang Ao

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 191 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aikeremujiang MuheremuMedical Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing 8610084, China ; Department of Orthopedics, Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 86838010, China ; Institute of Tissue Engineering, China Medical University, No. 77 Puhe Road, Shenyang North New Area, Shenyang, Liaoning 86110122, China.
Qiang AoInstitute of Tissue Engineering, China Medical University, No. 77 Puhe Road, Shenyang North New Area, Shenyang, Liaoning 86110122, China.
China Medical University · CNXinjiang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With significant advances in the research and application of nerve conduits, they have been used to repair peripheral nerve injury for several decades. Nerve conduits range from biological tubes to synthetic tubes, and from nondegradable tubes to biodegradable tubes. Researchers have explored hollow tubes, tubes filled with scaffolds containing neurotrophic factors, and those seeded with Schwann cells or stem cells. The therapeutic effect of nerve conduits is improving with increasing choice of conduit material, new construction of conduits, and the inclusion of neurotrophic factors and support cells in the conduits. Improvements in functional outcomes are expected when these are optimized for use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsAnimalsGuided Tissue RegenerationHumansPeripheral Nerve Injuries

Identifiers

PMID26491662
PMCPMC4600484
OpenAlexW1926181654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.