Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26491685›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2015

Biomaterial Approaches to Enhancing Neurorestoration after Spinal Cord Injury: Strategies for Overcoming Inherent Biological Obstacles.

Justin R Siebert, Amber M Eade, Donna J Osterhout

Abstract 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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [Promotion of transplanted collagen scaffolds combined with brain-derived neurotrophic factor for axonal regeneration and motor function recovery in rats after transected spinal cord injury].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Justin R SiebertLake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine at Seton Hill, Greensburg, PA 15601, USA.
Amber M EadeLake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine at Seton Hill, Greensburg, PA 15601, USA.
Donna J OsterhoutDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While advances in technology and medicine have improved both longevity and quality of life in patients living with a spinal cord injury, restoration of full motor function is not often achieved. This is due to the failure of repair and regeneration of neuronal connections in the spinal cord after injury. In this review, the complicated nature of spinal cord injury is described, noting the numerous cellular and molecular events that occur in the central nervous system following a traumatic lesion. In short, postinjury tissue changes create a complex and dynamic environment that is highly inhibitory to the process of neural regeneration. Strategies for repair are outlined with a particular focus on the important role of biomaterials in designing a therapeutic treatment that can overcome this inhibitory environment. The importance of considering the inherent biological response of the central nervous system to both injury and subsequent therapeutic interventions is highlighted as a key consideration for all attempts at improving functional recovery.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord RegenerationAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsHumansSpinal Cord InjuriesBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID26491685
PMCPMC4600545

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.