Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29239316›Full record

ReviewNeural regeneration research2017

Design and criteria of electrospun fibrous scaffolds for the treatment of spinal cord injury.

Barbara Vigani, Silvia Rossi, Giuseppina Sandri, Maria Cristina Bonferoni, Franca Ferrari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural regeneration research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Advanced Bio-Based Polymers for Astrocyte Cell Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Manipulation of Axonal Outgrowth via Exogenous Low Forces.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. VPA/PLGA microfibers produced by coaxial electrospinning for the treatment of central nervous system injury.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Barbara ViganiDepartment of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia, Viale Taramelli, Pavia, Italy.
Silvia RossiDepartment of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia, Viale Taramelli, Pavia, Italy.
Giuseppina SandriDepartment of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia, Viale Taramelli, Pavia, Italy.
Maria Cristina BonferoniDepartment of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia, Viale Taramelli, Pavia, Italy.
Franca FerrariDepartment of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia, Viale Taramelli, Pavia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complex pathophysiology of spinal cord injury may explain the current lack of an effective therapeutic approach for the regeneration of damaged neuronal cells and the recovery of motor functions. Many efforts have been performed to design and develop suitable scaffolds for spinal cord regeneration, keeping in mind that the reconstruction of a pro-regenerative environment is the key challenge for an effective neurogenesis. The aim of this review is to outline the main features of an ideal scaffold, based on biomaterials, produced by the electrospinning technique and intended for the spinal cord regeneration. An overview of the polymers more investigated in the production of neural fibrous scaffolds is also provided.

Indexed as

biodegradabilitybiomaterialsconductive scaffoldselectrospun fibersmorphological propertiesspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID29239316
PMCPMC5745824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.