Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317464›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Role of Electrical Stimulation in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: A Systematic Review.

Rawan ElAbd, Abdulaziz Alabdulkarim, Salman AlSabah, Jessica Hazan, Becher Alhalabi, Stephanie Thibaudeau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Advancing Peripheral Nerve Regeneration (Nerve SPACE 2025).Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rawan ElAbdDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait.
Abdulaziz AlabdulkarimDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Salman AlSabahDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait.
Jessica HazanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Becher AlhalabiDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Stephanie ThibaudeauDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
McGill University Health Centre · CAKuwait University · KW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional recovery after peripheral nerve injury is often suboptimal despite the intrinsic permissive growth environment of the peripheral nervous system. The objective of this systematic review is to explore the use of electrical stimulation (ES) for peripheral nerve regeneration. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted from inception to March 2, 2021 to retrieve articles on ES for peripheral nerve regeneration using the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Primary outcome measures included objective measures of motor and sensory nerve function. Results: Four randomized control trials, two case reports, and three case series that addressed the aims were identified. The stimulation parameters varied greatly between studies, without an apparent commonality for a given electrical conduit. Outcomes measured included motor (n = 8) and sensory (n = 7) modalities (cold detection, static two-point discrimination, tactile discrimination, and pressure detection), nerve-specific muscle function and bulk, and electromyography (EMG) motor and sensory terminal latency. Different parameters for measurement were utilized and improvement was observed across the studies compared with controls (n = 4) or pre-intervention measurements (n = 5). One randomized control trial reported no benefit of ES and attributed their findings to their stimulation protocol. Complications were documented in three patients only and included wire remnant removal, skin pigmentation, and bone formation. Conclusions: ES in peripheral nerve regeneration is beneficial in improving and accelerating recovery. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity, but all studies showed positive findings and minor to no complications. These results provide a primer for further development of delivery methods.

Identifiers

PMID35317464
PMCPMC8932473
OpenAlexW4220853442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.