Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41050034›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

The Role of Stem Cells in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: A Narrative Review.

Deepa G, Shrikrishna B H

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Deepa GAnatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar, Hyderabad, IND.
Shrikrishna B HOtorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar, Hyderabad, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stem cell therapies are gaining attention as a potential strategy for promoting recovery in peripheral nerve injuries. These injuries, particularly in complex anatomical regions, often lead to long-term functional deficits. There is a pressing need to explore novel therapeutic approaches. Experimental studies have shown that various stem cell types possess regenerative capabilities. This review synthesizes existing experimental and clinical evidence, highlighting the types of stem cells investigated, their mechanisms of action, and reported functional outcomes. Among them, adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells have demonstrated consistent improvements in nerve function and structural repair. Other cell types, including hair follicle and dental pulp stem cells, have also shown promising outcomes in preclinical models. Clinical studies remain limited, with only a few reporting partial recovery and minimal adverse effects. However, the overall quality of clinical evidence is low, limiting the strength of conclusions. The current evidence suggests potential, but it remains insufficient for broad clinical application. The review identifies key knowledge gaps, such as limited large-scale human trials, and underscores the need for high-quality research to determine the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of stem cell-based therapies for peripheral nerve repair. Further high-quality human trials are urgently needed to establish the safety and efficacy of these therapies.

Indexed as

clinical trialsmesenchymal stem cellsnerve regenerationperipheral nervesstem cells

Identifiers

PMID41050034
PMCPMC12489869

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.