SynthesisSpinal cord2025
Neuroregenerative and neuroprotective effects of bioengineered scaffolds in spinal cord injury: a systematic review of preclinical and early phase clinical studies.
Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intramedullary injection of polymerized laminin in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: a first-in-human pilot study.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Microtubules in Spinal Cord Injury: From Cytoskeletal Dysregulation to Therapeutic Regeneration.Journal of neurochemistry · 2026Review
- Animal models of spinal cord injury in neuro-urological research.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Antigliotic guiding regenerative gel: a bioactive hydrogel platform for peripheral nerve and spinal cord repair.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic Review
objectivesTo systematically examine the use of bioengineered scaffolds, with/without bioactive agents, drugs, or cellular transplants in preclinical animal models and human studies of spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingSina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023437266). A comprehensive search in MEDLINE and Embase on 8/27/2023 identified studies on scaffolds as neuroregenerative and neuroprotective treatments for SCI. Human studies were assessed using ROBINS-I, and meta-analysis focused on clinical outcomes.
resultsOf 4561 articles screened, 931 studies were included: in-vivo (82%), in-vitro (16%), and human studies (1%). Various biomaterials (N = 82; natural: 38%; synthetic: 62%), cell types (N = 27; NSCs: 24%, Schwann cells: 13%, NPCs: 12%), bioactive agents (N = 38; NT-3: 32%, BDNF: 25%, FGF: 24%), and pharmacological agents (N = 88; chABC: 12%, heparin: 11%, taxels: 10%) were analyzed. Fourteen human studies included acute and chronic SCI patients, with cervical (36%) and thoracic SCI (64%). Clinical trials demonstrated moderate to low quality (ROBINS-I). Our meta-analysis indicated that the pooled 2-scale AIS conversion rate was 30.59% (p = 0.005) ranging from 33.46% (p = 0.036) in acute to 28.35% (p = 0.084) in chronic SCI. Furthermore, the pooled 1-scale AIS conversion rate was 11.79% (p = 0.011), spanning from 17.31% (p = 0.131) in acute to 7.44% (p = 0.081) in chronic SCI.
conclusionScaffold implantation shows promising neuroregenerative potential, evidenced by AIS grade improvement in human studies. Scaffolds are advancing rapidly from laboratory research to clinical trials, expanding treatment options for SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40849360What 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.