ReviewNeurosurgical review2026
Brain-spine interface: an exploration of a potential future treatment for spinal cord injury.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) profoundly impact millions globally, leading to loss of motor and sensory functions below the injury site. Brain-spine interfaces (BSIs) represent an early-stage neuroprosthetic strategy that attempts to restore functional communication between cortical motor-intention signals and spinal sensorimotor circuits below the level of injury. Although early preclinical and highly selected clinical studies have shown encouraging motor outcomes, the evidence remains preliminary, and routine clinical use is limited by questions regarding safety, durability, patient selection, accessibility, and long-term functional benefit. BSI approaches are based on the observation that residual spinal pathways and sensorimotor circuits may remain partially responsive to neuromodulation even after injury. Along the way, technological advancements have significantly bolstered SCI treatment strategies, ranging from surgical interventions to regenerative therapies. Approaches such as neurostimulation and biomaterial-based strategies have shown potential in experimental and early translational settings, although their clinical efficacy and generalizability remain incompletely established. Furthermore, exploring neuroplasticity and the body's intrinsic ability to reorganize neural connections post-injury underscores the potential for spontaneous recovery in certain cases. However, integrating BSIs into clinical practice faces substantial hurdles, including technical challenges, ethical considerations, and the need for specialized training for healthcare providers. Despite these obstacles, BSIs and other novel treatments may have potential to improve the quality of life for SCI patients, although further clinical investigation is needed to establish their safety, efficacy, and generalizability. This review catalogs recent conceptual and technological developments contributing to the emergence of BSI.
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.