Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30154617›Full record

ReviewJournal of hand and microsurgery2018

Nerve Repair with Nerve Conduits: Problems, Solutions, and Future Directions.

Ryan Rebowe, Ashley Rogers, Xuebin Yang, S C Kundu, Thomas L Smith, Zhongyu Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Graphene-based nanomaterials for peripheral nerve regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  14. Ballistic peripheral nerve injuries: basic concepts, controversies, and proposal for a management strategy.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Revision of Carpal Tunnel Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  17. Selection in Scopus.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Ryan ReboweDepartment of Orthopaedics, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States.
Ashley RogersDepartment of Orthopaedics, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States.
Xuebin YangDepartment of Oral Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
S C KunduDepartment of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India.
Thomas L SmithDepartment of Orthopaedics, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States.
Zhongyu LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nerve conduits are becoming increasingly popular for the repair of peripheral nerve injuries. Their ease of application and lack of donor site morbidity make them an attractive option for nerve repair in many situations. Today, there are many different conduits to choose in different sizes and materials, giving the reconstructive surgeon many options for any given clinical problem. However, to properly utilize these unique reconstructive tools, the peripheral nerve surgeon must be familiar not only with their standard indications but also with their functional limitations. In this review, the authors identify the common applications of nerve conduits, expected results, and shortcomings of current techniques. Furthermore, future directions for nerve conduit use are identified.

Indexed as

nerve conduitnerve gapnerve injurynerve palsy

Identifiers

PMID30154617
PMCPMC6103750

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.