Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33043791›Full record

ReviewNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2020

Translational Approaches to Electrical Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.

Seth C Ransom, Shane Shahrestani, Brian V Lien, Ali R Tafreshi, Nolan J Brown, Brian Hanst, Brandon M Lehrich, R Chase Ransom, Ronald Sahyouni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Characterization of a Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Electrode Utilizing a Bioabsorbable Suture Substrate.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
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

9 authors.

Seth C RansomUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5949-1703
Shane ShahrestaniCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Brian V LienUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Ali R TafreshiGeisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA.
Nolan J BrownUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Brian HanstUniversity of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0433-2542
Brandon M LehrichUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
R Chase RansomMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ronald SahyouniUniversity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008620 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI GOLDIN, ALAN L · 1999 to 2023
$8.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAchieving functional repair after peripheral nerve injury (PNI) remains problematic despite considerable advances in surgical technique. Therein, questions lie regarding the variable capacity of peripheral nerves to regenerate based on environmental influence. In-depth analyses of multiple therapeutic strategies have ensued to overcome these natural obstacles. Of these candidate therapies, electrical stimulation has emerged a frontrunner. Extensive animal studies have reported the ability of brief intraoperative electrical stimulation (BES) to enhance functional regeneration after PNI. Despite these reports, the exact mechanisms by which BES enhances regeneration and its effects on long nerve lesions are largely unknown. Indeed, clinical translation of this seemingly simple therapeutic has not been so simple, but a few studies performed in humans have yielded highly encouraging results.

objectiveWe aimed to help bridge this translational gap by presenting the latest clinical trials on electrical stimulation for PNIs in combination with relevant etiologies, treatments and nonclinical findings.

methodsTo do so, a systematic search was performed on PubMed, IEEE, and Web of Science databases up to February 2020 using keywords significant to our study. References of each manuscript were screened for additional manuscripts of relevance to our study.

resultsWe found multiple BES clinical studies reporting enhanced functional recovery or increased nerve regeneration. Although improved outcomes were reported, high variability after BES is seen between and within species likely due to injury severity, location and timeline along with other factors.

conclusionFurther clinical studies and introduction of novel delivery platforms are vital to uncover the true regenerative potential of electrical stimulationtherapy.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyNerve RegenerationAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalHumansPeripheral Nerve InjuriesTranslational Research, BiomedicalTreatment Outcomeelectrical stimulationperipheral nerve injuryregenerationtherapy

Identifiers

PMID33043791
PMCPMC7655605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.