Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39381397›Full record

ReviewJournal of hand surgery global online2024

A Systematic Review to Compare Electrical, Magnetic, and Optogenetic Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve Repair.

Priya Kaluskar, Dhruv Bharadwaj, K Swaminathan Iyer, Christopher Dy, Minghao Zheng, David M Brogan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Peripheral nerve repair: innovations and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Priya KaluskarCentre for Orthopaedic Research, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Dhruv BharadwajMedical School, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
K Swaminathan IyerSchool of Molecular Sciences, the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Christopher DyOrthopaedic Surgery Division of Hand and Microsurgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Minghao ZhengCentre for Orthopaedic Research, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
David M BroganDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Funding

Identification and Imaging of Skeletal Muscle Response to Graded Nerve CrushK08AR080260 · NIAMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROGAN, DAVID MICAH · 2022 to 2025
$624k
NIAMS NIH HHS K08 AR080260
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the currently available evidence for the use of external stimulation to modulate neural activity and promote peripheral nerve regeneration. The most common external stimulations are electrical stimulation (ES), optogenetic stimulation (OS), and magnetic stimulation (MS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness of these stimulation methods is pivotal in advancing therapeutic interventions for peripheral nerve injuries. This systematic review focused on these three external stimulation modalities as potential strategies to enhance peripheral nerve repair (PNR). We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework to systematically evaluate and compare the efficiency of ES, OS, and MS in PNR. The review included studies published between 2018 and 2023 using ES, OS, or MS for PNR focused on enhancing recovery of peripheral nerve injuries in rodent models identified through PubMed and Google Scholar. The search strategies and inclusion criteria identified 19 studies (13 ES, 4 OS, and 2 MS) for detailed analysis, focusing on critical parameters such as functional recovery, histological outcomes, and electrophysiological data. Although ES demonstrated a consistent improvement in all the analyses, high-frequency repetitive MS (HFr-MS) emerged as a promising modality. HFr-MS demonstrated accelerated PNR, as histological and electrophysiological evidence indicated. In contrast, OS exhibited superior functional recovery outcomes. Notable limitations include constrained MS and OS data sets and the challenge of comparing relative improvements because of methodological diversity in evaluation techniques. Our findings underscore the potential of HFr-MS and OS in PNR while emphasizing the critical need for standardized testing protocols to facilitate meaningful cross-study comparisons. External stimulations have the potential to improve functional recovery in patients with nerve injury.

Indexed as

Electrical stimulationMagnetic stimulationOptogenetic stimulationPeripheral nerve repair

Identifiers

PMID39381397
PMCPMC11456630

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.