ReviewJournal of hand surgery global online2024
A Systematic Review to Compare Electrical, Magnetic, and Optogenetic Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve Repair.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on upper extremity motor function recovery after stroke: a meta-analysis and dose-response study.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Neuromodulation strategies in postburn care for pain rehabilitation and scar remodelling.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Peripheral nerve repair: innovations and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- MR-ARFI to evaluate intensity variability and enhance targeting of FUS: A brain study in rats.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Facial nerve pathology: emerging strategies for regeneration and functional restoration.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2025Review
- A novel perspective on the regulation of cardiac cell beating: cardiac cell under mechanical stimulation acts as "cell activation button" to activate adjacent cardiac cell.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Article
- PILOT STUDY OF COMBINED TRANSVERTEBRAL MAGNETIC AND TRANSCUTANEOUS STIMULATION FOR THE REHABILITATION OF COMBAT ACUTE SPINAL CORD INJURIES.Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Multi-component Therapy for Peripheral Nerve Injury: A Case Report.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.