ReviewMolecular biology reports2025
Pathophysiology of spinal cord injury and advanced therapeutic approaches.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- LEP Knockdown Improves Functional Recovery After Spinal Cord Injury and Potentially Regulates Microglial Polarization via JAK-STAT Signaling Pathway.Neuromolecular medicine · 2026Article
- circ_0044235 exacerbates neuroinflammation and apoptosis following spinal cord injury by targeting miR-338-5p.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Focal Estrogen Therapy in Male Rats Promotes Neuronal Survival and Reduces Denervation Atrophy After Spinal Cord Injury via Modulation of β-Catenin and NF-κB.Neurochemical research · 2026Article
- The Scent of a Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: Growth Factors and Their Potential to Modulate Olfactory Ensheathing Cells.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Comprehensive analysis of m6A RNA methylation regulators and the immune microenvironment in spinal cord injury.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal cord injuries are severe and debilitating, potentially causing permanent neurological losses. Such devastating injuries are associated with limitations in the established treatments, thus demanding some innovative avenues. One among such highly promising approaches concerning tissue-engineered repair in spinal cord injuries (SCI) is the employment of an amalgamation of cells, growth factors, and scaffolds by considering their possible application for regeneration and repair in damaged tissues. This review article covers all the complex pathophysiology associated with SCI, including acute, subacute, intermediate, and chronic phases. Traditional treatments include medications, surgery, and rehabilitation while advanced tissue engineering approaches involve hydrogels as well as electro spun nanofibers as cell scaffolds. Stem cells applied in such therapies may be derived from dental pulp stem cells, stromal cells, oral mucosa stem cells and olfactory ensheathing cells. Regeneration of the damaged area is dictated by controlling factors like neurotrophic factors, cyclic AMP, chondroitin sulphate, inflammatory cytokines etc. 3D scaffolds are recommended over 2D scaffolds. A dynamic and more effective method is provided by 4D scaffolds which may alter the structure in response to inputs. While there have been groundbreaking developments with these approaches, significant challenges exist in the translation of these laboratory investigations into efficacious therapies in the clinical setting. Further studies are thus needed to optimize the sources of cells, scaffold design, and delivery methods to attain the highest possible outcomes. The review also focuses on extracellular vesicular therapies and targeted therapies hold more promise for effective recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40608164What 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.