ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Ti
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- MXene quantum dot polymer nanocomposites as smart platforms for targeted drug delivery and multifunctional biomedical applications: an updated review.Discover nano · 2026Review
- An implantable mechano-electro cascade platform synchronizes neuro-muscle repair.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Multimodal electroconductive PLGA-based scaffold orchestrates neuroprotection and regeneration following severe spinal cord injury.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Article
- Advanced development of conductive biomaterials for enhanced peripheral nerve regeneration: a review.RSC advances · 2025Review
- MXene-Reinforced Composite Cryogel Scaffold for Neural Tissue Repair.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Interactions between Schwann cell and extracellular matrix in peripheral nerve regeneration.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- MXene-Embedded Electrospun Polymeric Nanofibers for Biomedical Applications: Recent Advances.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Electroceuticals for peripheral nerve regeneration.Biofabrication · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An electrical signal is the key basis of normal physiological function of the nerve, and the stimulation of the electric signal also plays a very special role in the repair process of nerve injury. Electric stimulation is shown to be effective in promoting axonal regeneration and myelination, thereby promoting nerve injury repair. At present, it is considered that electric conduction recovery is a key aspect of regeneration and repair of long nerve defects. Conductive neural scaffolds have attracted more and more attention due to their similar electrical properties and good biocompatibility with normal nerves. Herein, PCL and MXene-PCL nerve guidance conduits (NGCs) were prepared; their effect on nerve regeneration was evaluated
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.