ArticleNeural regeneration research2016
Repetitive magnetic stimulation affects the microenvironment of nerve regeneration and evoked potentials after spinal cord injury.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in 3D printing combined with tissue engineering for nerve regeneration and repair.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Repetitive magnetic stimulation prevents dorsal root ganglion neuron death and enhances nerve regeneration in a sciatic nerve injury rat model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Can alternative medical methods evoke somatosensory responses and functional improvement?Heliyon · 2024Review
- The Effect of Gravity on Marginal Integrity of Different Flowable Bulk-Fill Resin Composites.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Application of magnetism in tissue regeneration: recent progress and future prospects.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Review
- Functional nanoparticle-enabled non-genetic neuromodulation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2023Review
- Nerve root magnetic stimulation improves locomotor function following spinal cord injury with electrophysiological improvements and cortical synaptic reconstruction.Neural regeneration research · 2022Article
- Effect of the combination of high-frequency repetitive magnetic stimulation and neurotropin on injured sciatic nerve regeneration in rats.Neural regeneration research · 2020Article
- [Icariin alleviates lipid peroxidation after spinal cord injury in rats].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repetitive magnetic stimulation has been shown to alter local blood flow of the brain, excite the corticospinal tract and muscle, and induce motor function recovery. We established a rat model of acute spinal cord injury using the modified Allen's method. After 4 hours of injury, rat models received repetitive magnetic stimulation, with a stimulus intensity of 35% maximum output intensity, 5-Hz frequency, 5 seconds for each sequence, and an interval of 2 minutes. This was repeated for a total of 10 sequences, once a day, 5 days in a week, for 2 consecutive weeks. After repetitive magnetic stimulation, the number of apoptotic cells decreased, matrix metalloproteinase 9/2 gene and protein expression decreased, nestin expression increased, somatosensory and motor-evoked potentials recovered, and motor function recovered in the injured spinal cord. These findings confirm that repetitive magnetic stimulation of the spinal cord improved the microenvironment of neural regeneration, reduced neuronal apoptosis, and induced neuroprotective and repair effects on the injured spinal cord.
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.