Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29453349›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2018

Ultrasound and shock-wave stimulation to promote axonal regeneration following nerve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies.

Simeon C Daeschler, Leila Harhaus, Philipp Schoenle, Arne Boecker, Ulrich Kneser, Konstantin D Bergmeister

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Crosstalk between Bone and Nerves within Bone.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simeon C DaeschlerDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Heidelberg, BG Trauma Hospital Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Leila HarhausDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Heidelberg, BG Trauma Hospital Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Philipp SchoenleDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Heidelberg, BG Trauma Hospital Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Arne BoeckerDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Heidelberg, BG Trauma Hospital Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Ulrich KneserDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Heidelberg, BG Trauma Hospital Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Konstantin D BergmeisterDepartment of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, Department of Plastic and Hand Surgery, University of Heidelberg, BG Trauma Hospital Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Konstantin.Bergmeister@bgu-ludwigshafen.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3910-9727
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limited regeneration after nerve injury often leads to delayed or incomplete reinnervation and consequently insufficient muscle function. Following nerve surgery, application of low-intensity ultrasound or extracorporeal shock waves may promote nerve regeneration and improve functional outcomes. Because currently clinical data is unavailable, we performed a meta-analysis following the PRISMA-guidelines to investigate the therapeutic effect of ultrasound and shock wave therapies on motor nerve regeneration. Ten ultrasound-studies (N = 445 rats) and three shock-wave studies (N = 110 rats) were identified from multiple databases. We calculated the difference in means or standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals for motor function, nerve conduction velocity and histomorphological parameters of treated versus sham or non-treated animals. Ultrasound treatment showed significantly faster nerve conduction, increased axonal regeneration with thicker myelin and improved motor function on sciatic functional index scale (week two: DM[95%CI]: 19,03[13,2 to 25,6], 71 animals; week four: 7,4[5,4 to 9,5], 47 animals). Shock wave induced recovery improvements were temporarily significant. In conclusion, there is significant evidence for low-intensity ultrasound but not for extracorporeal shock wave treatment to improve nerve regeneration. Prospective clinical trials should therefore investigate available FDA-approved ultrasound devices as adjunct postoperative treatment following nerve surgery.

Indexed as

RegenerationUltrasonic WavesAnimalsAxonsSciatic Nerve

Identifiers

PMID29453349
PMCPMC5816639
OpenAlexW2805111684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.