Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33488738›Full record

ArticleStem cells international2021

Combined Use of Chitosan and Olfactory Mucosa Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells to Promote Peripheral Nerve Regeneration

Rui D Alvites, Mariana V Branquinho, Ana C Sousa, Irina Amorim, Rui Magalhães, Filipa João, Diogo Almeida, Sandra Amado, Justina Prada, Isabel Pires and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Rui D AlvitesDepartamento de Clínicas Veterinárias, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto (UP), Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Mariana V BranquinhoDepartamento de Clínicas Veterinárias, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto (UP), Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Ana C SousaDepartamento de Clínicas Veterinárias, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto (UP), Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Irina AmorimDepartamento de Patologia e Imunologia Molecular, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto (UP), Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Rui MagalhãesUniversidade Católica Portuguesa, Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina (CBQF)-Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Rua Diogo Botelho 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal.
Filipa JoãoCentro Interdisciplinar de Estudo da Performance Humana (CIPER), Faculdade de Motricidade Humana (FMH), Universidade de Lisboa (ULisboa), 1495-751 Cruz Quebrada, Portugal.
Diogo AlmeidaInstituto Politécnico de Leiria, Unidade de Investigação em Saúde da Escola Superior de Saúde de Leiria (UIS-IPL), Portugal.
Sandra AmadoInstituto Politécnico de Leiria, Unidade de Investigação em Saúde da Escola Superior de Saúde de Leiria (UIS-IPL), Portugal.
Justina PradaCentro de Ciência Animal e Veterinária (CECAV), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
Isabel PiresCentro de Ciência Animal e Veterinária (CECAV), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
Federica ZenDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Stefania RaimondoDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Ana L LuísDepartamento de Clínicas Veterinárias, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto (UP), Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Stefano GeunaDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043 Orbassano, Italy.
Artur S P VarejãoCentro de Ciência Animal e Veterinária (CECAV), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal.
Ana C MaurícioDepartamento de Clínicas Veterinárias, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto (UP), Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-9363
Universidade do Porto · PTNeuroscience Institute · ITUniversity of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro · PTInstituto Politécnico de Leiria · PTUniversidade Católica Portuguesa · PTUniversity of Lisbon · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral nerve injury remains a clinical challenge with severe physiological and functional consequences. Despite the existence of multiple possible therapeutic approaches, until now, there is no consensus regarding the advantages of each option or the best methodology in promoting nerve regeneration. Regenerative medicine is a promise to overcome this medical limitation, and in this work, chitosan nerve guide conduits and olfactory mucosa mesenchymal stem/stromal cells were applied in different therapeutic combinations to promote regeneration in sciatic nerves after neurotmesis injury. Over 20 weeks, the intervened animals were subjected to a regular functional assessment (determination of motor performance, nociception, and sciatic indexes), and after this period, they were evaluated kinematically and the sciatic nerves and cranial tibial muscles were evaluated stereologically and histomorphometrically, respectively. The results obtained allowed confirming the beneficial effects of using these therapeutic approaches. The use of chitosan NGCs and cells resulted in better motor performance, better sciatic indexes, and lower gait dysfunction after 20 weeks. The use of only NGGs demonstrated better nociceptive recoveries. The stereological evaluation of the sciatic nerve revealed identical values in the different parameters for all therapeutic groups. In the muscle histomorphometric evaluation, the groups treated with NGCs and cells showed results close to those of the group that received traditional sutures, the one with the best final values. The therapeutic combinations studied show promising outcomes and should be the target of new future works to overcome some irregularities found in the results and establish the combination of nerve guidance conduits and olfactory mucosa mesenchymal stem/stromal cells as viable options in the treatment of peripheral nerves after injury.

Identifiers

PMID33488738
PMCPMC7801080
OpenAlexW3119592967

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.