ReviewCellular and molecular neurobiology2025
Electrical Stimulation and Platelet-Rich Plasma as Complementary Approaches for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.
Review in Cellular and molecular neurobiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) remain a major cause of long-term disability, with standard treatments such as microsurgical repair and autologous grafting often yielding incomplete recovery due to slow axonal regeneration, fibrotic scarring, and limited reinnervation. Emerging therapies, including electrical stimulation (ES) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), have shown promise but remain insufficient as standalone interventions. ES enhances axonal elongation, remyelination, and neuroplasticity by upregulating regeneration-associated genes and neurotrophins, while PRP delivers autologous growth factors that promote angiogenesis, Schwann cell activation, immunomodulation, and antioxidant defense. Both therapies converge on shared pathways by reducing inflammation, oxidative stress, and scar formation, thereby remodeling the microenvironment into a pro-regenerative niche. Preclinical evidence indicates that combining ES and PRP provides complementary benefits, with ES priming the injury site and PRP sustaining trophic support, resulting in superior axonal density, myelination, and functional recovery compared to monotherapies. Future directions emphasize personalized protocols, optimized ES parameters, standardized PRP formulations, and integration with biomaterials and closed-loop stimulation systems. Translation to clinical practice, however, requires standardized guidelines and rigorous randomized controlled trials to validate these multimodal strategies and enable patient-specific regenerative therapies.
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.