Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36768142›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Morphological Methods to Evaluate Peripheral Nerve Fiber Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.

Giulia Ronchi, Federica Fregnan, Luisa Muratori, Giovanna Gambarotta, Stefania Raimondo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Giulia RonchiDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences & Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi (NICO), University of Torino, Orbassano, 10043 Torino, TO, Italy.
Federica FregnanDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences & Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi (NICO), University of Torino, Orbassano, 10043 Torino, TO, Italy.
Luisa MuratoriDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences & Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi (NICO), University of Torino, Orbassano, 10043 Torino, TO, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4881-3313
Giovanna GambarottaDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences & Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi (NICO), University of Torino, Orbassano, 10043 Torino, TO, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8380-5925
Stefania RaimondoDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences & Neuroscience Institute Cavalieri Ottolenghi (NICO), University of Torino, Orbassano, 10043 Torino, TO, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8907-473X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regeneration of damaged peripheral nerves remains one of the main challenges of neurosurgery and regenerative medicine, a nerve functionality is rarely restored, especially after severe injuries. Researchers are constantly looking for innovative strategies for tackling this problem, with the development of advanced tissue-engineered nerve conduits and new pharmacological and physical interventions, with the aim of improving patients' life quality. Different evaluation methods can be used to study the effectiveness of a new treatment, including functional tests, morphological assessment of regenerated nerve fibers and biomolecular analyses of key factors necessary for good regeneration. The number and diversity of protocols and methods, as well as the availability of innovative technologies which are used to assess nerve regeneration after experimental interventions, often makes it difficult to compare results obtained in different labs. The purpose of the current review is to describe the main morphological approaches used to evaluate the degree of nerve fiber regeneration in terms of their usefulness and limitations.

Indexed as

Peripheral Nerve InjuriesHumansNerve FibersNerve RegenerationPeripheral NervesSciatic NerveTissue Engineeringmeasurement reliability and reproducibilitymorphological outcome measurementperipheral nerve regeneration

Identifiers

PMID36768142
PMCPMC9915436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.