ReviewRegenerative therapy2025
Advances in sciatic nerve regeneration: A review of contemporary techniques.
Review in Regenerative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Low-intensity shock wave therapy for penile rehabilitation in patients with erectile dysfunction following pelvic fracture urethral injury: a pilot study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Platelet-rich plasma -mediated dual repair of immunity and barrier: an innovative hypothesis for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Platelet-rich plasma in peripheral nerve injury repair: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and therapeutic potential.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sciatic nerve injury, affecting the longest and thickest nerve in the human body, often leads to severe pain, weakness, and impaired motor function in the lower extremities. Despite the peripheral nervous system's inherent capacity for some degree of regeneration, complete recovery remains elusive, necessitating advanced therapeutic approaches. This review explores two promising modalities electrical stimulation (ES) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) that have shown the potential to enhance nerve repair and functional recovery. ES, through techniques such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), and direct current stimulation (DCS), facilitates neuronal regeneration by guiding axonal growth, releasing neurotrophic factors, and promoting synaptic plasticity. PRP, derived from autologous blood, is rich in growth factors such as Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and nerve growth factor (NGF), which are essential for nerve regeneration, angiogenesis, and reducing inflammation. Clinical evidence supports the efficacy of ES and PRP in promoting nerve regeneration and functional recovery (Figure 1). However, further research is needed to optimize their application and understand their long-term outcomes. This review highlights the potential of these therapies to capitalize on their actions, potentially creating a robust regenerative milieu. Further research is needed to optimize treatment procedures and validate their efficacy and safety in humans.
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.