Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248104›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2022

Vanessa Hubertus, Lea Meyer, Laurens Roolfs, Lilly Waldmann, Melina Nieminen-Kelhä, Michael G Fehlings, Peter Vajkoczy

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brain & spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vanessa HubertusCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, And Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany.
Lea MeyerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, And Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany.
Laurens RoolfsCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, And Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany.
Lilly WaldmannCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, And Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany.
Melina Nieminen-KelhäCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, And Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany.
Michael G FehlingsToronto Western Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery and Spinal Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Peter VajkoczyCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, And Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Neurosurgery, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. Treatment is limited to supportive care and no curative therapy exists. Experimental research to understand the complex pathophysiology and potential mediators of spinal cord regeneration is essential to develop innovative translational therapies. A multitude of experimental imaging methods to monitor spinal cord regeneration Research Question: This systematic literature review examines the current standards in experimental imaging in SCI allowing for Material and Methods: Articles were included meeting the following criteria: experimental research, original studies, rodent subjects, and intravital imaging. Reviewed in detail are microstructural and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Micro-Computed Tomography, Laser Speckle Imaging, Very High Resolution Ultrasound, and Results: Following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, 689 articles were identified for review, of which 492 were sorted out after screening and an additional 104 after detailed review. For qualitative synthesis 93 articles were included in this publication. Discussion and Conclusion: With this study we give an up-to-date overview about modern experimental imaging techniques with the potential to advance the knowledge on spinal cord regeneration following SCI. A thorough knowledge of the strengths and limitations of the reviewed techniques will help to optimally exploit our current experimental armamentarium in the field.

Indexed as

Animal studiesIn vivo imagingIn vivo studiesModern imagingSpinal cord injurySpinal cord regeneration

Identifiers

PMID36248104
PMCPMC9560701
OpenAlexW4200352821

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.