ReviewFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2024
Combining external physical stimuli and nanostructured materials for upregulating pro-regenerative cellular pathways in peripheral nerve repair.
Review in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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.
- Radiomics Applied to the Diagnosis of Peripheral Nerve Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Existing Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Peripheral nerve repair: innovations and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Piezoelectric Chitosan Microporous Scaffolds for Ultrasound-Driven Schwann Cell Migration and Enhanced Neurotrophins Production.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2026Article
- Unraveling the Potential of Small Molecule Heparin Glycomimetics in Neuroregenerative Therapeutics.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2025Article
- Emerging Approaches to Mitigate Neural Cell Degeneration with Nanoparticles-Enhanced Polyelectrolyte Systems.Membranes · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral nerve repair remains a major clinical challenge, particularly in the pursuit of therapeutic approaches that ensure adequate recovery of patient's activity of daily living. Autografts are the gold standard in clinical practice for restoring lost sensorimotor functions nowadays. However, autografts have notable drawbacks, including dimensional mismatches and the need to sacrifice one function to restore another. Engineered nerve guidance conduits have therefore emerged as promising alternatives. While these conduits show surgical potential, their clinical use is currently limited to the repair of minor injuries, as their ability to reinnervate limiting gap lesions is still unsatisfactory. Therefore, improving patient functional recovery requires a deeper understanding of the cellular mechanisms involved in peripheral nerve regeneration and the development of therapeutic strategies that can precisely modulate these processes. Interest has grown in the use of external energy sources, such as light, ultrasound, electrical, and magnetic fields, to activate cellular pathways related to proliferation, differentiation, and migration. Recent research has explored combining these energy sources with tailored nanostructured materials as nanotransducers to enhance selectivity towards the target cells. This review aims to present the recent findings on this innovative strategy, discussing its potential to support nerve regeneration and its viability as an alternative to autologous transplantation.
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.