ReviewRegenerative medicine2024
Influencing factors and repair advancements in rodent models of peripheral nerve regeneration.
Review in Regenerative medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a GDNF-eluting nanofibrous PCL conduit in a mouse model of peripheral nerve injury.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Phase-Specific Evaluation of Sciatic Nerve Regeneration in Preclinical Studies: A Review of Functional Assessment, Emerging Therapies, and Translational Value.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Endoneurial immune interplay in peripheral nerve repair: insights and implications for future therapeutic interventions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
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
Peripheral nerve injuries lead to severe functional impairments, with rodent models essential for studying regeneration. This review examines key factors affecting outcomes. Age-related declines, like reduced nerve fiber density and impaired axonal transport of vesicles, hinder recovery. Hormonal differences influence regeneration, with BDNF/trkB critical for testosterone and nerve growth factor for estrogen signaling pathways. Species and strain selection impact outcomes, with C57BL/6 mice and Sprague-Dawley rats exhibiting varying regenerative capacities. Injury models - crush for early regeneration, chronic constriction for neuropathic pain, stretch for traumatic elongation and transection for severe lacerations - provide insights into clinically relevant scenarios. Repair techniques, such as nerve grafts and conduits, show that autografts are the gold standard for gaps over 3 cm, with success influenced by graft type and diameter. Time course analysis highlights crucial early degeneration and regeneration phases within the first month, with functional recovery stabilizing by three to six months. Early intervention optimizes regeneration by reducing scar tissue formation, while later interventions focus on remyelination. Understanding these factors is vital for designing robust preclinical studies and translating research into effective clinical treatments for peripheral nerve injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.