Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20734104›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2010

Cartilage biology, pathology, and repair.

Daniel Umlauf, Svetlana Frank, Thomas Pap, Jessica Bertrand

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Crosslinking of tarsal collagen as a hypothetical therapy for dry eye disease.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Advanced silk materials for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Daniel UmlaufInstitute of Experimental Musculoskeletal Medicine IEMM, University Hospital Muenster, Domagkstrasse 3, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Svetlana Frank
Thomas Pap
Jessica Bertrand

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoarthritis is one of the most common forms of musculoskeletal disease and the most prominent type of arthritis encountered in all countries. Although great efforts have been made to investigate cartilage biology and osteoarthritis pathology, the treatment has lagged behind that of other arthritides, as there is a lack of effective disease-modifying therapies. Numerous approaches for dealing with cartilage degradation have been tried, but enjoyed very little success to develop approved OA treatments with not only symptomatic improvement but also structure-modifying effect. In this review we discuss the most recent findings regarding the regulation of cartilage biology and pathology and highlight their potential therapeutic values.

Indexed as

CartilageOsteoarthritisChondrocytesCytokinesExtracellular MatrixHumansJointsRegenerationCytokines

Identifiers

PMID20734104
PMCPMC11115553

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.