Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40475697›Full record

ReviewRegenerative therapy2025

Advances in sciatic nerve regeneration: A review of contemporary techniques.

Sardar Ali, Ming Sun, Muhammad Nadeem Khan, Fang Qiang

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regenerative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sardar AliDepartment of Biomedical Engineering (BME), Shantou University Shantou 515063, China.
Ming SunDepartment of Biomedical Engineering (BME), Shantou University Shantou 515063, China.
Muhammad Nadeem KhanDepartment of Cell Biology & Genetics, Shantou University Medical College, 515041 Shantou, China.
Fang QiangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering (BME), Shantou University Shantou 515063, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sciatic nerve injury, affecting the longest and thickest nerve in the human body, often leads to severe pain, weakness, and impaired motor function in the lower extremities. Despite the peripheral nervous system's inherent capacity for some degree of regeneration, complete recovery remains elusive, necessitating advanced therapeutic approaches. This review explores two promising modalities electrical stimulation (ES) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) that have shown the potential to enhance nerve repair and functional recovery. ES, through techniques such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), and direct current stimulation (DCS), facilitates neuronal regeneration by guiding axonal growth, releasing neurotrophic factors, and promoting synaptic plasticity. PRP, derived from autologous blood, is rich in growth factors such as Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and nerve growth factor (NGF), which are essential for nerve regeneration, angiogenesis, and reducing inflammation. Clinical evidence supports the efficacy of ES and PRP in promoting nerve regeneration and functional recovery (Figure 1). However, further research is needed to optimize their application and understand their long-term outcomes. This review highlights the potential of these therapies to capitalize on their actions, potentially creating a robust regenerative milieu. Further research is needed to optimize treatment procedures and validate their efficacy and safety in humans.

Indexed as

Adipose-derived stem cellsBrain-derived neurotrophic factorClinical studyElectrical stimulationNerve growth factorNerve regenerationPlatelets-rich plasmaSciatic nerves

Identifiers

PMID40475697
PMCPMC12138371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.