Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19196119›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2009

Hydrostatic pressure in articular cartilage tissue engineering: from chondrocytes to tissue regeneration.

Benjamin D Elder, Kyriacos A Athanasiou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Bioactive materials · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

30 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

2 authors.

Benjamin D ElderDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77251, USA.
Kyriacos A Athanasiou

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cartilage has a poor intrinsic healing response, and neither the innate healing response nor current clinical treatments can restore its function. Therefore, articular cartilage tissue engineering is a promising approach for the regeneration of damaged tissue. Because cartilage is exposed to mechanical forces during joint loading, many tissue engineering strategies use exogenous stimuli to enhance the biochemical or biomechanical properties of the engineered tissue. Hydrostatic pressure (HP) is emerging as arguably one of the most important mechanical stimuli for cartilage, although no optimal treatment has been established across all culture systems. Therefore, this review evaluates prior studies on articular cartilage involving the use of HP, with a particular emphasis on the treatments that appear promising for use in future studies. Additionally, this review addresses HP bioreactor design, chondroprotective effects of HP, the use of HP for chondrogenic differentiation, the effects of high pressures, and HP mechanotransduction.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBioreactorsCartilageCattleCells, CulturedChondrocytesChondrogenesisHumansPressureRegenerationStress, MechanicalTissue Engineering

Identifiers

PMID19196119
PMCPMC2817666

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.