Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32123299›Full record

ReviewActa pharmacologica Sinica2020

Growth factors-based therapeutic strategies and their underlying signaling mechanisms for peripheral nerve regeneration.

Rui Li, Duo-Hui Li, Hong-Yu Zhang, Jian Wang, Xiao-Kun Li, Jian Xiao

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta pharmacologica Sinica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

136 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 243 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rui LiMolecular Pharmacology Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Duo-Hui LiMolecular Pharmacology Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Hong-Yu ZhangMolecular Pharmacology Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Jian WangDepartment of Peripheral Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Wenzhou, Medical University, Wenzhou, 325000, China.
Xiao-Kun LiMolecular Pharmacology Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China. xiaokunli@163.net.
Jian XiaoMolecular Pharmacology Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China. xfxj2000@126.com.
Wenzhou Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral nerve injury (PNI), one of the most common concerns following trauma, can result in a significant loss of sensory or motor function. Restoration of the injured nerves requires a complex cellular and molecular response to rebuild the functional axons so that they can accurately connect with their original targets. However, there is no optimized therapy for complete recovery after PNI. Supplementation with exogenous growth factors (GFs) is an emerging and versatile therapeutic strategy for promoting nerve regeneration and functional recovery. GFs activate the downstream targets of various signaling cascades through binding with their corresponding receptors to exert their multiple effects on neurorestoration and tissue regeneration. However, the simple administration of GFs is insufficient for reconstructing PNI due to their short half‑life and rapid deactivation in body fluids. To overcome these shortcomings, several nerve conduits derived from biological tissue or synthetic materials have been developed. Their good biocompatibility and biofunctionality made them a suitable vehicle for the delivery of multiple GFs to support peripheral nerve regeneration. After repairing nerve defects, the controlled release of GFs from the conduit structures is able to continuously improve axonal regeneration and functional outcome. Thus, therapies with growth factor (GF) delivery systems have received increasing attention in recent years. Here, we mainly review the therapeutic capacity of GFs and their incorporation into nerve guides for repairing PNI. In addition, the possible receptors and signaling mechanisms of the GF family exerting their biological effects are also emphasized.

Indexed as

AnimalsAxonsClinical Trials as TopicHumansNerve Growth FactorsNerve RegenerationPeripheral Nerve InjuriesPeripheral NervesSchwann CellsSignal TransductionNerve Growth Factorsaxonal regenerationbasic fibroblast growth factorgrowth factorsnerve conduitsnerve growth factorperipheral nerve injurysignaling cascade

Identifiers

PMID32123299
PMCPMC7608263
OpenAlexW3010409416

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.