Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31452463›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2019

Regenerative Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury.

Nureddin Ashammakhi, Han-Jun Kim, Arshia Ehsanipour, Rebecca D Bierman, Outi Kaarela, Chengbin Xue, Ali Khademhosseini, Stephanie K Seidlits

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Alginate scaffolds improve functional recovery after spinal cord injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Effects of chemogenetic virus injection and clozapine administration in spinal cord injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Effect of melatonin loaded chitosan hydrogel on rat spinal cord injury.Veterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

13 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

8 authors.

Nureddin AshammakhiDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland.
Han-Jun KimCenter for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics (C-MIT), Los Angeles, California.
Arshia EhsanipourCalifornia NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), Los Angeles, California.
Rebecca D BiermanCalifornia NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), Los Angeles, California.
Outi KaarelaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland.
Chengbin XueCenter for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics (C-MIT), Los Angeles, California.
Ali KhademhosseiniCenter for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics (C-MIT), Los Angeles, California.
Stephanie K SeidlitsCenter for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics (C-MIT), Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious problem that primarily affects younger and middle-aged adults at its onset. To date, no effective regenerative treatment has been developed. Over the last decade, researchers have made significant advances in stem cell technology, biomaterials, nanotechnology, and immune engineering, which may be applied as regenerative therapies for the spinal cord. Although the results of clinical trials using specific cell-based therapies have proven safe, their efficacy has not yet been demonstrated. The pathophysiology of SCI is multifaceted, complex and yet to be fully understood. Thus, combinatorial therapies that simultaneously leverage multiple approaches will likely be required to achieve satisfactory outcomes. Although combinations of biomaterials with pharmacologic agents or cells have been explored, few studies have combined these modalities in a systematic way. For most strategies, clinical translation will be facilitated by the use of minimally invasive therapies, which are the focus of this review. In addition, this review discusses previously explored therapies designed to promote neuroregeneration and neuroprotection after SCI, while highlighting present challenges and future directions. Impact Statement To date there are no effective treatments that can regenerate the spinal cord after injury. Although there have been significant preclinical advances in bioengineering and regenerative medicine over the last decade, these have not translated into effective clinical therapies for spinal cord injury. This review focuses on minimally invasive therapies, providing extensive background as well as updates on recent technological developments and current clinical trials. This review is a comprehensive resource for researchers working towards regenerative therapies for spinal cord injury that will help guide future innovation.

Indexed as

RegenerationAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBioengineeringCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHumansSpinal Cord InjuriesStem CellsBiocompatible Materialsbiomaterialscell therapyminimally invasiveregenerationspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID31452463
PMCPMC6919264

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.