SynthesisSpinal cord2022
Effectiveness of biomaterial-based combination strategies for spinal cord repair - a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature.
Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Implantation of a Bioresorbable Polymer Scaffold in Patients With Complete Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial (INSPIRE 2.0).Neurosurgery · 2025Trial
- Spatiotemporal Co-Delivery of Hydrogen and Magnesium via Microneedle Patches for Neuroinflammation Modulation After Spinal Cord Injury: A Multi-Modal In Vivo Study.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Spinal motor neuron degeneration after brachial plexus avulsion: mechanisms and therapeutic targets.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Combined biomaterial scaffold and neuromodulation strategy to promote tissue repair and corticospinal connectivity after spinal cord injury in a rodent model.Experimental neurology · 2024Article
- Biocompatible adipose extracellular matrix and reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite for tissue engineering applications.Materials today. Bio · 2024Article
- Tackling the glial scar in spinal cord regeneration: new discoveries and future directions.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature.
objectivesTo assess the effects of biomaterial-based combination (BMC) strategies for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), the effects of individual biomaterials in the context of BMC strategies, and the factors influencing their efficacy. To assess the effects of different preclinical testing paradigms in BMC strategies.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search of Embase, Web of Science and PubMed. All controlled preclinical studies describing an in vivo or in vitro model of SCI that tested a biomaterial in combination with at least one other regenerative strategy (cells, drugs, or both) were included. Two review authors conducted the study selection independently, extracted study characteristics independently and assessed study quality using a modified CAMARADES checklist. Effect size measures were combined using random-effects models and heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression with tau
results134 publications were included, testing over 100 different BMC strategies. Overall, treatment with BMC therapies improved locomotor recovery by 25.3% (95% CI, 20.3-30.3; n = 102) and in vivo axonal regeneration by 1.6 SD (95% CI 1.2-2 SD; n = 117) in comparison with injury only controls.
conclusionBMC strategies improve locomotor outcomes after experimental SCI. Our comprehensive study highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides a foundation for the design of future experiments.
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.