Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799504›Full record

ReviewNeural regeneration research2023

Molecular approaches for spinal cord injury treatment.

Fernanda Martins de Almeida, Suelen Adriani Marques, Anne Caroline Rodrigues Dos Santos, Caio Andrade Prins, Fellipe Soares Dos Santos Cardoso, Luiza Dos Santos Heringer, Henrique Rocha Mendonça, Ana Maria Blanco Martinez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural regeneration research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Transcriptomics Insights into Spinal Cord Injury for Therapy Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Targeted HAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

8 authors.

Fernanda Martins de AlmeidaLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Suelen Adriani MarquesLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Neurobiologia, Laboratório de Regeneração Neural e Função, UFF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Anne Caroline Rodrigues Dos SantosLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Neurobiologia, Laboratório de Regeneração Neural e Função, UFF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Caio Andrade PrinsLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Fellipe Soares Dos Santos CardosoLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Luiza Dos Santos HeringerLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Henrique Rocha MendonçaLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro; Laboratório Integrado de Morfologia, Instituto de Biodiversidade e Sustentabilidade NUPEM, Programa de Pós-graduação Multicêntrico em Ciências Fisiológicas - SBFis, Centro Multidisciplinar UFRJ-Macaé, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Macaé, Brazil.
Ana Maria Blanco MartinezLaboratório de Neurodegeneração e Reparo, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina: Anatomia Patológica, Departamento de Patologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Injuries to the spinal cord result in permanent disabilities that limit daily life activities. The main reasons for these poor outcomes are the limited regenerative capacity of central neurons and the inhibitory milieu that is established upon traumatic injuries. Despite decades of research, there is still no efficient treatment for spinal cord injury. Many strategies are tested in preclinical studies that focus on ameliorating the functional outcomes after spinal cord injury. Among these, molecular compounds are currently being used for neurological recovery, with promising results. These molecules target the axon collapsed growth cone, the inhibitory microenvironment, the survival of neurons and glial cells, and the re-establishment of lost connections. In this review we focused on molecules that are being used, either in preclinical or clinical studies, to treat spinal cord injuries, such as drugs, growth and neurotrophic factors, enzymes, and purines. The mechanisms of action of these molecules are discussed, considering traumatic spinal cord injury in rodents and humans.

Indexed as

axonal regenerationdrugsenzymesgrowth factorsmolecular therapyneurotrophic factorspurinesspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID35799504
PMCPMC9241396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.