ReviewFrontiers in neurology2023
Contralateral seventh cervical nerve transfer for central spastic arm paralysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel contralateral ulnar nerve transfer model for selective muscle reinnervation in upper motor neuron syndrome.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Low-output lymphatic leakage after contralateral seventh cervical nerve cross transfer: a clinical and anatomical observation.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Contralateral C7 nerve transfer combined with human acellular nerve allograft as a viable strategy for spastic upper limb paralysis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The specific benefits of a contralateral cervical 7 nerve transplant in people with spastic paralysis of the upper extremity caused by cerebral nerve injury are unclear. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of contralateral C7 nerve transfer for central spastic paralysis of the upper extremity, we conducted a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis. Materials and methods: PRISMA guidelines were used to search the databases for papers comparing the efficacy of contralateral cervical 7 nerve transfer vs. rehabilitation treatment from January 2010 to August 2022. The finishing indications were expressed using SMD ± mean. A meta-analysis was used to assess the recovery of motor function in the paralyzed upper extremity. Results: The meta-analysis included three publications. One of the publications offers information about RCTs and non-RCTs. A total of 384 paralyzed patients were included, including 192 who underwent CC7 transfer and 192 who received rehabilitation. Results from all patients were combined and revealed that patients who had CC7 transfer may have regained greater motor function in the Fugl-Meyer score (SMD 3.52, 95% CI = 3.19-3.84, Conclusion: Our findings suggested that a contralateral C7 nerve transfer, which has no additional adverse effects on the healthy upper limb, is a preferable method to restore motor function.
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.