Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41516292›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025

Phase-Specific Evaluation of Sciatic Nerve Regeneration in Preclinical Studies: A Review of Functional Assessment, Emerging Therapies, and Translational Value.

Denisa Mădălina Viezuină, Irina Mușa Burlacu, Andrei Greșiță, Irina-Mihaela Matache, Elena-Anca Târtea, Mădălina Iuliana Mușat, Manuel-Ovidiu Amzoiu, Bogdan Cătălin, Veronica Sfredel, Smaranda Ioana Mitran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

10 authors.

Denisa Mădălina ViezuinăU.M.F. Doctoral School Craiova, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Irina Mușa BurlacuU.M.F. Doctoral School Craiova, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Andrei GreșițăDepartment of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Str., 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Irina-Mihaela MatacheFaculty of Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-7870-4791
Elena-Anca TârteaDepartment of Neurology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Mădălina Iuliana MușatExperimental Research Centre for Normal and Pathological Aging, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Manuel-Ovidiu AmzoiuFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200638 Craiova, Romania.
Bogdan CătălinDepartment of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Str., 200349 Craiova, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-5706-8722
Veronica SfredelDepartment of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Str., 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Smaranda Ioana MitranDepartment of Physiology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 2-4 Petru Rares Str., 200349 Craiova, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral nerve injuries, particularly those involving the sciatic nerve, remain a major clinical challenge due to incomplete functional recovery and the limited translation of preclinical advances into effective therapies. This review synthesizes current evidence on the phase-specific evaluation of sciatic nerve regeneration in preclinical models, integrating behavioral, sensory, electrophysiological, and morphological approaches across the acute, subacute (Wallerian degeneration), early regenerative, and late regenerative phases. By mapping functional readouts onto the underlying biological events of each phase, we highlight how tools such as the Sciatic Functional Index, Beam Walk test, Rotarod test, nerve conduction studies, and nociceptive assays provide complementary and often non-interchangeable information about motor, sensory, and neuromuscular recovery. We further examine emerging therapeutic strategies, including intraoperative electrical stimulation, immunomodulation, platelet-rich plasma, bioengineered scaffolds, conductive and piezoelectric conduits, exosome-based hydrogels, tacrolimus delivery systems, and small molecules, emphasizing the importance of aligning their mechanisms of action with the dynamic microenvironment of peripheral nerve repair. Despite substantial advancements in experimental models, an analysis of publication trends and registries reveals a persistent translational gap, with remarkably few clinical trials relative to the high volume of preclinical studies. To illustrate how mechanistic insights can be complemented by molecular-level characterization, we also present a targeted computational analysis of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA,) including frontier orbital energies, physicochemical descriptors, and docking interactions with IL-6, TGF-β, and a growth-factor receptor-performed solely for this molecule due to its documented structural availability and relevance. By presenting an integrated, phase-specific framework for functional assessment and therapeutic evaluation, this review underscores the need for standardized, biologically aligned methodologies to improve the rigor, comparability, and clinical relevance of future studies in sciatic nerve regeneration.

Indexed as

Nerve RegenerationPeripheral Nerve InjuriesSciatic NerveAnimalsHumansNerve Conduction StudiesRecovery of FunctionTranslational Research, Biomedicalbeam walk testnerve regenerationrotarod testsciatic functional indexsciatic nerve

Identifiers

PMID41516292
PMCPMC12787077

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.