ReviewNeural regeneration research2024
Review in Neural regeneration research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- IL-33/ST2 Signaling and Microglial Functional-State Transitions After Spinal Cord Injury: Direct Evidence and Mechanistic Hypotheses.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A new paradigm of bidirectional regulation of the gut-spinal cord axis.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Comparing Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Added to Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis with Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis Alone on Pain, Trunk Control, and Respiratory Function in Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Spinal cord stimulation: An emerging strategy for chronic pain relief after spinal cord injury.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Cutting-edge technologies in neural regeneration.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deciphering the neuronal response to injury in the spinal cord is essential for exploring treatment strategies for spinal cord injury (SCI). However, this subject has been neglected in part because appropriate tools are lacking. Emerging in vivo imaging and labeling methods offer great potential for observing dynamic neural processes in the central nervous system in conditions of health and disease. This review first discusses in vivo imaging of the mouse spinal cord with a focus on the latest imaging techniques, and then analyzes the dynamic biological response of spinal cord sensory and motor neurons to SCI. We then summarize and compare the techniques behind these studies and clarify the advantages of in vivo imaging compared with traditional neuroscience examinations. Finally, we identify the challenges and possible solutions for spinal cord neuron imaging.
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.