Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33618774›Full record

ReviewBioelectronic medicine2021

Cut wires: The Electrophysiology of Regenerated Tissue.

Alexis L Lowe, Nitish V Thakor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioelectronic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Alexis L LoweThe Neuroengineering Lab, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. alowe14@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-1452
Nitish V ThakorThe Neuroengineering Lab, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

Training Program in NeuroengineeringT32EB003383 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI NITISH VYOMESH THAKOR · 2004 to 2026
$6.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB003383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When nerves are damaged by trauma or disease, they are still capable of firing off electrical command signals that originate from the brain. Furthermore, those damaged nerves have an innate ability to partially regenerate, so they can heal from trauma and even reinnervate new muscle targets. For an amputee who has his/her damaged nerves surgically reconstructed, the electrical signals that are generated by the reinnervated muscle tissue can be sensed and interpreted with bioelectronics to control assistive devices or robotic prostheses. No two amputees will have identical physiologies because there are many surgical options for reconstructing residual limbs, which may in turn impact how well someone can interface with a robotic prosthesis later on. In this review, we aim to investigate what the literature has to say about different pathways for peripheral nerve regeneration and how each pathway can impact the neuromuscular tissue's final electrophysiology. This information is important because it can guide us in planning the development of future bioelectronic devices, such as prosthetic limbs or neurostimulators. Future devices will primarily have to interface with tissue that has undergone some natural regeneration process, and so we have explored and reported here what is known about the bioelectrical features of neuromuscular tissue regeneration.

Indexed as

BioelectronicsElectromyography (EMG)ElectrophysiologyNerve regenerationNeural interfacesNeuromuscularReconstructive surgerySensorimotor

Identifiers

PMID33618774
PMCPMC7901193

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.