Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30223579›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2018

Neurodegenerative Diseases: Regenerative Mechanisms and Novel Therapeutic Approaches.

Rashad Hussain, Hira Zubair, Sarah Pursell, Muhammad Shahab

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

104 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Rashad HussainCenter for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Rochester, NY 14642, USA. rashad_hussain@urmc.rochester.edu.
Hira ZubairDepartment of Animal Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan. hirazubair6@gmail.com.
Sarah PursellCenter for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Rochester, NY 14642, USA. spursel2@u.rochester.edu.
Muhammad ShahabDepartment of Animal Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan. shahab@qau.edu.pk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regeneration refers to regrowth of tissue in the central nervous system. It includes generation of new neurons, glia, myelin, and synapses, as well as the regaining of essential functions: sensory, motor, emotional and cognitive abilities. Unfortunately, regeneration within the nervous system is very slow compared to other body systems. This relative slowness is attributed to increased vulnerability to irreversible cellular insults and the loss of function due to the very long lifespan of neurons, the stretch of cells and cytoplasm over several dozens of inches throughout the body, insufficiency of the tissue-level waste removal system, and minimal neural cell proliferation/self-renewal capacity. In this context, the current review summarized the most common features of major neurodegenerative disorders; their causes and consequences and proposed novel therapeutic approaches.

Indexed as

intra-cellular signalingmechanismsneurogenesisneuroregenerationtherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID30223579
PMCPMC6162719

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.