ArticleJPRAS open2025
Surgeons, physiatrists and neurologists speaking "EDX and nerve surgery": A paradigm shift for nerve injured patients.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07605585 (Sensory Neurography and S2PD), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Sensory Neurography and S2PD: A Test-Retest Study in Ten Healthy Individuals to Assess Method Reliability
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The neurogenic elbow disharmony loop: a pathophysiologic model for chronic elbow pain supported by one hundred and fifty seven radial tunnel decompressions.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Commentary: Quantitative Scratch Collapse Test Methodology with Handheld Dynamometer: Normative Upper-Extremity Force Data and Reliability Analysis.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgeons' ability to interpret electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies has greatly enhanced patient selection and outcome for nerve surgeries as it has informed our understanding of the classification of nerve injury. EDX measures axons present, lost, or demyelinated. It does not measure an area where axons experience chronic ischemia, making a Sunderland Zero nerve injury a clinical diagnosis that should be suspected when patients have normal EDX, decreased recruitment on electromyography (EMG), and no atrophy. Only observation of recovery in the earliest postoperative period would confirm a Sunderland Zero. In this article, we present an expanded classification of nerve injury, highlighting Sunderland Zero or ischemic neurapraxia, and provide a historical and pathophysiological overview of how it came to be recognized. We also offer a user-friendly classification and an equation we call the Nerve Injury Calculator (NIC) that calculates the percent axonal loss, demyelinating loss, and ischemic axons to predict timing and quality of recovery. The clinical utility of the NIC is exemplified with three cases. With the development and introduction of the NIC, there is a paradigm shift amongst surgeons, physiatrists, and neurologists that allows us all to speak the same language of EDX and nerve surgery, enabling improved patient education, prediction of prognosis and timing of recovery, and efficient follow up with respect to patients' postoperative period.
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.