SynthesisBrain and behavior2020
Efficacy evaluation of personalized coaptation in neurotization for motor deficit after peripheral nerve injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy evaluation of personalized coaptation in neurotization for motor deficit after peripheral nerve injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain and behavior · 2020Pooled it
- Unveiling adcyap1 as a protective factor linking pain and nerve regeneration through single-cell RNA sequencing of rat dorsal root ganglion neurons.BMC biology · 2023Article
- Neural tissue engineering: From bioactive scaffolds and in situ monitoring to regeneration.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPeripheral neurotization, recently as a promising approach, has taken effect in recovering motor function after damage to a peripheral nerve root. Neural anastomosis comprised of nerve conduit and neurorrhaphy participates in the nerve reconstruction. Current literature lacks evidence supporting an individualized coaptation for rescue of locomotor loss in rat subjects with paraplegia secondary to peripheral nerve injury (PNI).
methodsThis meta-analysis intends to qualify the specificity of gap-specific coaptation in treating a paralyzed limb following PNI. We used a highly sensitive search strategy to identify all published studies in multiple databases up to 1 May 2019. All identified trials were systematically evaluated using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cochrane methodology was also applied to the results of this study.
resultsTwelve studies, including 349 rat subjects, met eligibility criteria. For a medium nerve defect (0.5-3.0 cm), nerve conduit was more likely than neurorrhaphy to precipitate axon regeneration and improve motor outcome of the hemiplegic limb (OR = 3.61, 95% CI = 1.80, 7.26, p < .0003) at 3-month follow-up, whereas neurorrhaphy might take its place in promoting limb motor function in a small nerve gap (<0.5 cm) (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.22, 1.07, p < .007). For a small nerve defect, nerve conduit still demonstrated visible effectiveness in recovery of limb motion albeit poorer than neurorrhaphy (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.92, 2.47, p < .05).
conclusionSelective neurotization facilitates motor regeneration after nerve transection, and advisable choice of neural coaptation can maximize functional outcome on an individual basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.