Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28779380›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2017

Peripheral Nerve Nanoimaging: Monitoring Treatment and Regeneration.

Jelena M Janjic, Vijay S Gorantla

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Nanomaterial-Based Therapy for Wound Healing.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Imaging in the repair of peripheral nerve injury.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2019
    Article
  8. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jelena M JanjicGraduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Avenue, 415 Mellon Hall, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15282, USA. janjicj@duq.edu.
Vijay S GorantlaDepartments of Surgery, Ophthalmology and Bioengineering, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 391 Technology Way, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101, USA.
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USDuquesne University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accidental and iatrogenic trauma are major causes of peripheral nerve injury. Healing after nerve injury is complex and often incomplete, which can lead to acute or chronic pain and functional impairment. Current assessment methods for nerve regeneration lack sensitivity and objectivity. There is a need for reliable and reproducible, noninvasive strategies with adequate spatial and temporal resolution for longitudinal evaluation of degeneration or regeneration after injury/treatment. Methods for noninvasive monitoring of the efficacy and effectiveness of neurotherapeutics in nerve regeneration or of neuropathic pain are needed to ensure adequacy and responsiveness to management, especially given the large variability in the patient populations, etiologies, and complexity of nerve injuries. Surrogate biomarkers are needed with positive predictive correlation for the dynamics and kinetics of neuroregeneration. They can provide direct real-time insight into the efficacy and mechanisms of individualized therapeutic intervention. Here, we review the state-of-the-art tools, technologies, and therapies in peripheral nerve injury and regeneration as well as provide perspectives for the future. We present compelling evidence that advancements in nanomedicine and innovation in nanotechnology such as nanotheranostics hold groundbreaking potential as paradigm shifts in noninvasive peripheral nerve imaging and drug delivery. Nanotechnology, which revolutionized molecular imaging in cancer and inflammatory disease, can be used to delineate dynamic molecular imaging signatures of neuroinflammation and neuroregeneration while simultaneously monitoring cellular or tissue response to drug therapy. We believe that current clinical successes of nanotechnology can and should be adopted and adapted to the science of peripheral nerve injury and regeneration.

Indexed as

NanomedicineNerve RegenerationAnimalsHumansMacrophagesNanoparticlesPeripheral Nerve InjuriesPeripheral Nervesimaginginjurynanomedicineneuroinflammationneuroregeneration

Identifiers

PMID28779380
OpenAlexW2742680917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.