Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28082858›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2016

Enhancing Nervous System Recovery through Neurobiologics, Neural Interface Training, and Neurorehabilitation.

Max O Krucoff, Shervin Rahimpour, Marc W Slutzky, V Reggie Edgerton, Dennis A Turner

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05855096 (Clinical Assessment And Treatment Preferences of Physiotherapists Working in Neurorehabilitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT05855096 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Assessment And Treatment Preferences of Physiotherapists Working in Neurorehabilitation: A Research From Turkey

TypeobservationalSponsorBiruni UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled95ConditionsNeurorehabilitation, Physiotherapist, Clinical Assessment, Treatment PreferencesArmsGoogle Form Questionnaire
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 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

5 authors.

Max O KrucoffDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC, USA.
Shervin RahimpourDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC, USA.
Marc W SlutzkyDepartment of Physiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicago, IL, USA; Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicago, IL, USA.
V Reggie EdgertonDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dennis A TurnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical CenterDurham, NC, USA; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical CenterDurham, NC, USA; Research and Surgery Services, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDurham, NC, USA.

Funding

Designing brain machine interfaces to drive plasticity and enhance recovery after brain injuryR01NS094748 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI DO, AN, SLUTZKY, MARC W. · 2015 to 2019
$2.3M
NINDS Research Education Programs for Residents and Fellows in NeurosurgeryR25NS065731 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI FECCI, PETER, HASAN, DAVID M. · 2009 to 2023
$968k
Action Potentials vs. Field Potentials as Inputs to a Brain-Machine InterfaceK08NS060223 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI SLUTZKY, MARC W. · 2007 to 2011
$839k
Hippocampal Neurovascular Plasticity in CVN-AD Mouse: Fornix-Septal StimulationR21AG051103 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI TURNER, DENNIS ALAN · 2016 to 2017
$423k
Fornix Stimulation Enhances Neurovascular Plasticity in Alzheimer's Mouse ModelI21BX003023 · VA · DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI TURNER, DENNIS ALAN · 2016 to 2017
–
Delayed Septal/Fornix Brain Stimulation after Repetitive Closed Head InjuryI21RX002223 · VA · DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI TURNER, DENNIS ALAN · 2017 to 2018
–
BLRD VA I21 BX003023NIA NIH HHS R21 AG051103NINDS NIH HHS K08 NS060223NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS094748NINDS NIH HHS R25 NS065731RRD VA I21 RX002223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After an initial period of recovery, human neurological injury has long been thought to be static. In order to improve quality of life for those suffering from stroke, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury, researchers have been working to restore the nervous system and reduce neurological deficits through a number of mechanisms. For example, neurobiologists have been identifying and manipulating components of the intra- and extracellular milieu to alter the regenerative potential of neurons, neuro-engineers have been producing brain-machine and neural interfaces that circumvent lesions to restore functionality, and neurorehabilitation experts have been developing new ways to revitalize the nervous system even in chronic disease. While each of these areas holds promise, their individual paths to clinical relevance remain difficult. Nonetheless, these methods are now able to synergistically enhance recovery of native motor function to levels which were previously believed to be impossible. Furthermore, such recovery can even persist after training, and for the first time there is evidence of functional axonal regrowth and rewiring in the central nervous system of animal models. To attain this type of regeneration, rehabilitation paradigms that pair cortically-based intent with activation of affected circuits and positive neurofeedback appear to be required-a phenomenon which raises new and far reaching questions about the underlying relationship between conscious action and neural repair. For this reason, we argue that multi-modal therapy will be necessary to facilitate a truly robust recovery, and that the success of investigational microscopic techniques may depend on their integration into macroscopic frameworks that include task-based neurorehabilitation. We further identify critical components of future neural repair strategies and explore the most updated knowledge, progress, and challenges in the fields of cellular neuronal repair, neural interfacing, and neurorehabilitation, all with the goal of better understanding neurological injury and how to improve recovery.

Indexed as

brain-machine interface (BMI)neural interfaceneural regenerationneural repairneural stimulationneuroplasticityneurorehabilitationspinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID28082858
PMCPMC5186786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.