Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31244609›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2019

Regeneration of Spinal Cord Connectivity Through Stem Cell Transplantation and Biomaterial Scaffolds.

Hiroyuki Katoh, Kazuya Yokota, Michael G Fehlings

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 184 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Personalized Stem Cell-Based Regeneration in Spinal Cord Injury Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review

36 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hiroyuki KatohDivision of Genetics and Development, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kazuya YokotaDivision of Genetics and Development, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael G FehlingsDivision of Genetics and Development, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Krembil Research InstituteUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant progress has been made in the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). Advances in post-trauma management and intensive rehabilitation have significantly improved the prognosis of SCI and converted what was once an "ailment not to be treated" into a survivable injury, but the cold hard fact is that we still do not have a validated method to improve the paralysis of SCI. The irreversible functional impairment of the injured spinal cord is caused by the disruption of neuronal transduction across the injury lesion, which is brought about by demyelination, axonal degeneration, and loss of synapses. Furthermore, refractory substrates generated in the injured spinal cord inhibit spontaneous recovery. The discovery of the regenerative capability of central nervous system neurons in the proper environment and the verification of neural stem cells in the spinal cord once incited hope that a cure for SCI was on the horizon. That hope was gradually replaced with mounting frustration when neuroprotective drugs, cell transplantation, and strategies to enhance remyelination, axonal regeneration, and neuronal plasticity demonstrated significant improvement in animal models of SCI but did not translate into a cure in human patients. However, recent advances in SCI research have greatly increased our understanding of the fundamental processes underlying SCI and fostered increasing optimism that these multiple treatment strategies are finally coming together to bring about a new era in which we will be able to propose encouraging therapies that will lead to appreciable improvements in SCI patients. In this review, we outline the pathophysiology of SCI that makes the spinal cord refractory to regeneration and discuss the research that has been done with cell replacement and biomaterial implantation strategies, both by itself and as a combined treatment. We will focus on the capacity of these strategies to facilitate the regeneration of neural connectivity necessary to achieve meaningful functional recovery after SCI.

Indexed as

biomaterialscentral nervous systemregenerationstem cell transplantationtraumatic spinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID31244609
PMCPMC6563678
OpenAlexW2958157831

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.