ArticleNeural regeneration research2015
Neuroprotective effects of ultrasound-guided nerve growth factor injections after sciatic nerve injury.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nerve Growth Factor Protects Against Pyrethroid-Induced Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress in Primary Hippocampal Neurons.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2020Article
- Establishment of axon regeneration regulatory network and the role of low intensity pulsed ultrasound in the network.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2019Article
- Biodegradable magnesium wire promotes regeneration of compressed sciatic nerves.Neural regeneration research · 2016Article
- Tissue-engineered rhesus monkey nerve grafts for the repair of long ulnar nerve defects: similar outcomes to autologous nerve grafts.Neural regeneration research · 2016Article
- Dynamic expression of nerve growth factor and its receptor TrkA after subarachnoid hemorrhage in rat brain.Neural regeneration research · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nerve growth factor (NGF) plays an important role in promoting neuroregeneration after peripheral nerve injury. However, its effects are limited by its short half-life; it is therefore important to identify an effective mode of administration. High-frequency ultrasound (HFU) is increasingly used in the clinic for high-resolution visualization of tissues, and has been proposed as a method for identifying and evaluating peripheral nerve damage after injury. In addition, HFU is widely used for guiding needle placement when administering drugs to a specific site. We hypothesized that HFU guiding would optimize the neuroprotective effects of NGF on sciatic nerve injury in the rabbit. We performed behavioral, ultrasound, electrophysiological, histological, and immunohistochemical evaluation of HFU-guided NGF injections administered immediately after injury, or 14 days later, and compared this mode of administration with intramuscular NGF injections. Across all assessments, HFU-guided NGF injections gave consistently better outcomes than intramuscular NGF injections administered immediately or 14 days after injury, with immediate treatment also yielding better structural and functional results than when the treatment was delayed by 14 days. Our findings indicate that NGF should be administered as early as possible after peripheral nerve injury, and highlight the striking neuroprotective effects of HFU-guided NGF injections on peripheral nerve injury compared with intramuscular administration.
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.