ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Development of a Core Outcomes Set for Peripheral Nerve Injury.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Clinical Research for Nerve Injuries (Nerve SPACE 2025).Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Ongoing Clinical Challenges in Nerve Surgery (Nerve SPACE 2025).Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The contemporary literature evaluating outcomes after peripheral nerve injury (PNI) does not rigorously and adequately address the domains (motor, sensory, function, and pain) experienced by patients. Our goal was to develop a core outcomes set (COS) to evaluate outcomes after PNI. Methods: We adhered to recommended guidelines for COS development. Following a systematic review of the literature, we assembled a panel of experts and used a modified Delphi to assess the appropriateness of candidate measures to evaluate recovery after PNI. We convened 20 experts in PNI using two initial electronic surveys, one in-person meeting, and a final electronic survey. We arrived at consensus (≥70% of panelists) for required and recommended measures to evaluate outcomes after PNI. Results: Our panel arrived at consensus for motor, sensory, function, and pain outcomes in patients after upper and lower extremity nerve injury. We designated the measures to use and the timing and administration of these measures. Conclusions: We developed a COS that can be used by clinicians and researchers who evaluate patients with PNI. Our goal is to implement the COS in a unified manner, facilitating comparison in the literature as well as collaboration among centers. Type of study/level of evidence: Diagnostic V.
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.