Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17717972›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2006

Bone regeneration: molecular and cellular interactions with calcium phosphate ceramics.

Florence Barrère, Clemens A van Blitterswijk, Klaas de Groot

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

148 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Florence BarrèreBiomedical Technological Institute (BMTI), University ofTwente, Enschede, The Netherlands. f.barrere@tnw.utwente.nl
Clemens A van Blitterswijk
Klaas de Groot

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calcium phosphate bioceramics are widely used in orthopedic and dental applications and porous scaffolds made of them are serious candidates in the field of bone tissue engineering. They have superior properties for the stimulation of bone formation and bone bonding, both related to the specific interactions of their surface with the extracellular fluids and cells, ie, ionic exchanges, superficial molecular rearrangement and cellular activity.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone RegenerationBone SubstitutesCalcium PhosphatesCells, CulturedCeramicsHumansOsseointegrationOsteoblastsOsteogenesisTissue EngineeringBone Substitutescalcium phosphateCalcium Phosphates

Identifiers

PMID17717972
PMCPMC2426803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.