Social networking sites can seem frivolous and pointless to academics, but specialized academic social networking sites are gaining popularity in certain disciplines and with certain faculty. These academic social networks were briefly discussed in a previous column, as was the new intersection between social media and scholarly publishing, but academic social networks are an interesting online space that merit their own discussion (Ovadia 2013). This column looks at ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net) and Academia.edu, two of the more popular academic social networks. Social networking functionality is increasingly common in all kinds of tools, though. Citation management products, like Mendeley, Zotero, and CiteU-Like, in addition to managing citations for users, also have social media features, allowing users to find and follow each other. However, those three tools are primarily citation managers that also have social networking functionality. ResearchGate and Academia.edu are primarily social networking sites. Online social networks exist along a continuum. Something like Facebook, while used for a multitude of purposes, is probably most frequently used for informal communication between friends of some degree. Something like LinkedIn is used for professional communication and career networking. Academic social networks are even more specific, catering to those associated with academic institutions and specializing in academic activities like sharing papers and data sets. They also provide publication analytics and facilitate the exchange of information. Both ResearchGate and Academia.edu allow users to post public questions to the community, much like Quora, another online question-and-answer site. Both networks group users by

Topically administered β-blockers are an effective treatment for superficial IHs that pose few adverse effects and should be considered for primary treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Collagen and human amniotic membrane (hAM) are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biomaterials that can be used as nerve wraps or conduits for repair of peripheral nerve injuries. Both biomaterials have been shown to reduce scarring and fibrosis of injured peripheral nerves. However, comparative advantages and disadvantages have not been definitively shown in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate the literature regarding the roles of hAM and collagen nerve wraps and conduits on peripheral nerve regeneration in preclinical models. Methods The MEDLINE database was queried using the PubMed search engine on July 7, 2019, with the following search strategy: (“amniotic membrane” OR “amnion”) OR (“collagen conduit” OR “nerve wrap”)] AND “nerve.” All resulting articles were screened by two independent reviewers. Nerve type, lesion type/injury model, repair type, treatment, and outcomes were assessed. Results Two hundred and fifty-eight articles were identified, and 44 studies remained after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seventeen studies utilized hAM, whereas 27 studies utilized collagen wraps or conduits. Twenty-three (85%) of the collagen studies utilized conduits, and four (15%) utilized wraps. Six (35%) of the hAM studies utilized conduits and 11 (65%) utilized wraps. Two (9%) collagen studies involving a conduit and one (25%) involving a wrap demonstrated at least one significant improvement in outcomes compared with a control. While none of the hAM conduit studies showed significant improvements, eight (73%) of the studies investigating hAM wraps showed at least one significant improvement in outcomes. Conclusion The majority of studies reported positive outcomes, indicating that collagen and hAM nerve wraps and conduits both have the potential to enhance peripheral nerve regeneration. However, relatively few studies reported significant findings, except for studies evaluating hAM wraps. Preclinical models may help guide clinical practice regarding applications of these biomaterials in peripheral nerve repair.