ArticlePeerJ2017
Anatomical mechanism of spontaneous recovery in regions caudal to thoracic spinal cord injury lesions in rats.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immediate Consequences of a Spinal Cord Injury During Development: Unique Insights From Ex Vivo Models.Neural plasticity · 2026Review
- Recovery of Motor Function via Intraspinal Detour Circuits following Unilateral Spinal Cord Injury.European neurology · 2026Article
- Assessment of hindlimb motor recovery after severe thoracic spinal cord injury in rats: classification of CatWalk XT® gait analysis parameters.Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- Mechanisms implicated in the contralateral effect in the central nervous system after unilateral injury: focus on the visual system.Neural regeneration research · 2021Review
- Contralateral Axon Sprouting but Not Ipsilateral Regeneration Is Responsible for Spontaneous Locomotor Recovery Post Spinal Cord Hemisection.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe nerve fibre circuits around a lesion play a major role in the spontaneous recovery process after spinal cord hemisection in rats. The aim of the present study was to answer the following question: in the re-control process, do all spinal cord nerves below the lesion site participate, or do the spinal cord nerves of only one vertebral segment have a role in repair?
methodsFirst we made a T7 spinal cord hemisection in 50 rats. Eight weeks later, they were divided into three groups based on distinct second operations at T7: ipsilateral hemisection operation, contralateral hemisection, or transection. We then tested recovery of hindlimbs for another eight weeks. The first step was to confirm the lesion had role or not in the spontaneous recovery process. Secondly, we performed T7 spinal cord hemisections in 125 rats. Eight weeks later, we performed a second single hemisection on the ipsilateral side at T8-T12 and then tested hindlimb recovery for another six weeks.
resultsIn the first part, the Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) scores and the electrophysiology tests of both hindlimbs weren't significantly different after the second hemisection of the ipsilateral side. In the second part, the closer the second hemisection was to T12, the more substantial the resulting impairment in BBB score tests and prolonged latency periods.
conclusionsThe nerve regeneration from the lesion area after hemisection has no effect on spontaneous recovery of the spinal cord. Repair is carried out by all vertebrae caudal and ipsilateral to the lesion, with T12 being most important.
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.