Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19453519›Full record

ReviewJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2009

Cartilage repair: past and future--lessons for regenerative medicine.

Gerjo J V M van Osch, Mats Brittberg, James E Dennis, Yvonne M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens, Reinhold G Erben, Yrjö T Konttinen, Frank P Luyten

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
–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

62 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Sustained-release losartan from peptide nanofibers promotes chondrogenesis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

2 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

7 authors.

Gerjo J V M van OschDepartment of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. g.vanosch@erasmusmc.nl
Mats Brittberg
James E Dennis
Yvonne M Bastiaansen-Jenniskens
Reinhold G Erben
Yrjö T Konttinen
Frank P Luyten

Funding

Tissue Engineering of NeotracheaR01DE015322 · NIDCR · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI DENNIS, JAMES E · 2004 to 2014
$3.6M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE015322NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE015322-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the first cell therapeutic study to repair articular cartilage defects in the knee in 1994, several clinical studies have been reported. An overview of the results of clinical studies did not conclusively show improvement over conventional methods, mainly because few studies reach level I of evidence for effects on middle or long term. However, these explorative trials have provided valuable information about study design, mechanisms of repair and clinical outcome and have revealed that much is still unknown and further improvements are required. Furthermore, cellular and molecular studies using new technologies such as cell tracking, gene arrays and proteomics have provided more insight in the cell biology and mechanisms of joint surface regeneration. Besides articular cartilage, cartilage of other anatomical locations as well as progenitor cells are now considered as alternative cell sources. Growth Factor research has revealed some information on optimal conditions to support cartilage repair. Thus, there is hope for improvement. In order to obtain more robust and reproducible results, more detailed information is needed on many aspects including the fate of the cells, choice of cell type and culture parameters. As for the clinical aspects, it becomes clear that careful selection of patient groups is an important input parameter that should be optimized for each application. In addition, the study outcome parameters should be improved. Although reduced pain and improved function are, from the patient's perspective, the most important outcomes, there is a need for more structure/tissue-related outcome measures. Ideally, criteria and/or markers to identify patients at risk and responders to treatment are the ultimate goal for these more sophisticated regenerative approaches in joint surface repair in particular, and regenerative medicine in general.

Indexed as

Cell TransplantationAdult Stem CellsAnimalsCartilage, ArticularCell DifferentiationChondrocytesEmbryonic Stem CellsHumansJoint DiseasesMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationOrthopedic ProceduresRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegenerationTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsTransplantation, Homologous

Identifiers

PMID19453519
PMCPMC3823400

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.