ReviewThe AAPS journal2017
Peripheral Nerve Nanoimaging: Monitoring Treatment and Regeneration.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on Advances in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.Cureus · 2024Review
- Neuromuscular Polytrauma Pain is Resolved by Macrophage COX-2 Nanoimmunomodulation.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- Morphological Methods to Evaluate Peripheral Nerve Fiber Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Neuro-nanotechnology: diagnostic and therapeutic nano-based strategies in applied neuroscience.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Review
- Nanomaterial-Based Therapy for Wound Healing.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review of nanotheranostics for molecular mechanisms underlying psychiatric disorders and commensurate nanotherapeutics for neuropsychiatry: The mind knockout.Nanotheranostics · 2021Review
- Imaging in the repair of peripheral nerve injury.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2019Article
- Network-centric medicine for peripheral nerve injury: Treating the whole to boost endogenous mechanisms of neuroprotection and regeneration.Neural regeneration research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.