Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28192079›Full record

ArticleExperimental neurology2017

Electrical neuromodulation of the cervical spinal cord facilitates forelimb skilled function recovery in spinal cord injured rats.

Monzurul Alam, Guillermo Garcia-Alias, Benita Jin, Jonathan Keyes, Hui Zhong, Roland R Roy, Yury Gerasimenko, Daniel C Lu, V Reggie Edgerton

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review of Recent Advances in Implantable Brain-Computer Interfaces for the Restoration of Motor Function in Patients With Paralysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Monzurul AlamDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
Guillermo Garcia-AliasDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
Benita JinDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
Jonathan KeyesDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
Hui ZhongDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
Roland R RoyDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States; Brain Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
Yury GerasimenkoDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States; Pavlov Institute of Physiology, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia; Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal University, Kazan 420006, Russia.
Daniel C LuDepartments of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.
V Reggie EdgertonDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States; Brain Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States; Departments of Neurobiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States; Departments of Neuroscience, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States. Electronic address: vre@ucla.edu.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Enabling forelimb function with agonist drug and epidural stimulation in SCIU01EB015521 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI EDGERTON, REGGIE, LU, DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$6.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB015521
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enabling motor control by epidural electrical stimulation of the spinal cord is a promising therapeutic technique for the recovery of motor function after a spinal cord injury (SCI). Although epidural electrical stimulation has resulted in improvement in hindlimb motor function, it is unknown whether it has any therapeutic benefit for improving forelimb fine motor function after a cervical SCI. We tested whether trains of pulses delivered at spinal cord segments C6 and C8 would facilitate the recovery of forelimb fine motor control after a cervical SCI in rats. Rats were trained to reach and grasp sugar pellets. Immediately after a dorsal funiculus crush at C4, the rats showed significant deficits in forelimb fine motor control. The rats were tested to reach and grasp with and without cervical epidural stimulation for 10weeks post-injury. To determine the best stimulation parameters to activate the cervical spinal networks involved in forelimb motor function, monopolar and bipolar currents were delivered at varying frequencies (20, 40, and 60Hz) concomitant with the reaching and grasping task. We found that cervical epidural stimulation increased reaching and grasping success rates compared to the no stimulation condition. Bipolar stimulation (C6- C8+ and C6+ C8-) produced the largest spinal motor-evoked potentials (sMEPs) and resulted in higher reaching and grasping success rates compared with monopolar stimulation (C6- Ref+ and C8- Ref+). Forelimb performance was similar when tested at stimulation frequencies of 20, 40, and 60Hz. We also found that the EMG activity in most forelimb muscles as well as the co-activation between flexor and extensor muscles increased post-injury. With epidural stimulation, however, this trend was reversed indicating that cervical epidural spinal cord stimulation has therapeutic potential for rehabilitation after a cervical SCI.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceAnimalsBiophysicsCervical VertebraeDisease Models, AnimalElectromyographyEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleForelimbHand StrengthRange of Motion, ArticularRatsRats, Long-EvansRecovery of FunctionSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord StimulationCervical spinal cord injuryCorticospinal tractEpidural electrical stimulationMotor-evoked potentialsReaching and grasping

Identifiers

PMID28192079
PMCPMC6219872
OpenAlexW2586297567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.