SynthesisPloS one2024
The effectiveness of acellular nerve allografts compared to autografts in animal models: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Melatonin in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Molecular Mechanisms, Schwann Cell Dynamics, and Translational Therapeutic Potential.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Application strategies of autologous and decellularized nerve grafts: Structural and functional recovery.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- The most common bone tumors of the upper extremity in childhood and adolescence and their treatment: a review of the current literature.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Contemporary Strategies of Gene and Cell Therapy in the Treatment of Peripheral Nervous System Injuries and Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Where Do We Stand for Nerve Regeneration and Functional Recovery After Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation?Microsurgery · 2026Review
- Use of processed nerve allograft to relieve pain and restore function in individuals with painful upper limb neuroma-a case series of five individuals.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- The Role of Vascularization in Nerve Regeneration: Mechanistic and Therapeutic Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Mesenchymal stem cell-based therapy for peripheral nerve injuries: A promise or reality?World journal of stem cells · 2025Review
- Fenugreek seed extract combined with acellular nerve allografts promotes peripheral nerve regeneration and neovascularization in sciatic nerve defects.Regenerative therapy · 2025Article
- Biohacking Nerve Repair: Novel Biomaterials, Local Drug Delivery, Electrical Stimulation, and Allografts to Aid Surgical Repair.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of nerve injuries proves to be a worldwide clinical challenge. Acellular nerve allografts are suggested to be a promising alternative for bridging a nerve gap to the current gold standard, an autologous nerve graft.
objectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of the acellular nerve allograft, its difference from the gold standard (the nerve autograft) and to discuss its possible indications. MATERIAL AND
methodsPubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched until the 4th of January 2022. Original peer reviewed paper that presented 1) distinctive data; 2) a clear comparison between not immunologically processed acellular allografts and autologous nerve transfers; 3) was performed in laboratory animals of all species and sex. Meta analyses and subgroup analyses (for graft length and species) were conducted for muscle weight, sciatic function index, ankle angle, nerve conduction velocity, axon count diameter, tetanic contraction and amplitude using a Random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted on graft length and species.
resultsFifty articles were included in this review and all were included in the meta-analyses. An acellular allograft resulted in a significantly lower muscle weight, sciatic function index, ankle angle, nerve conduction velocity, axon count and smaller diameter, tetanic contraction compared to an autologous nerve graft. No difference was found in amplitude between acellular allografts and autologous nerve transfers. Post hoc subgroup analyses of graft length showed a significant reduced muscle weight in long grafts versus small and medium length grafts. All included studies showed a large variance in methodological design.
conclusionOur review shows that the included studies, investigating the use of acellular allografts, showed a large variance in methodological design and are as a consequence difficult to compare. Nevertheless, our results indicate that treating a nerve gap with an allograft results in an inferior nerve recovery compared to an autograft in seven out of eight outcomes assessed in experimental animals. In addition, based on our preliminary post hoc subgroup analyses we suggest that when an allograft is being used an allograft in short and medium (0-1cm, > 1-2cm) nerve gaps is preferred over an allograft in long (> 2cm) nerve gaps.
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.