ReviewJournal of biomedical materials research. Part A2011
Founder's award to Antonios G. Mikos, Ph.D., 2011 Society for Biomaterials annual meeting and exposition, Orlando, Florida, April 13-16, 2011: Bones to biomaterials and back again--20 years of taking cues from nature to engineer synthetic polymer scaffolds.
Review in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell and Material-Specific Phage Display Peptides Increase iPS-MSC Mediated Bone and Vasculature Formation In Vivo.Advanced healthcare materials · 2019Article
- Perspectives on the interface of drug delivery and tissue engineering.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For biomaterials scientists focusing on tissue engineering applications, the gold standard material is healthy, autologous tissue. Ideal material properties and construct design parameters are thus both obvious and often times unachievable; additional considerations such as construct delivery and the underlying pathology necessitating new tissue yield additional design challenges with solutions that are not evident in nature. For the past nearly two decades, our laboratory and collaborators have aimed to develop both new biomaterials and a better understanding of the complex interplay between material and host tissue to facilitate bone and cartilage regeneration. Various approaches have ranged from mimicking native tissue material properties and architecture to developing systems for bioactive molecule delivery as soluble factors or bound directly to the biomaterial substrate. Such technologies have allowed others and us to design synthetic biomaterials incorporating increasing levels of complexity found in native tissues with promising advances made toward translational success. Recent work focuses on translation of these technologies in specific clinical situations through the use of adjunctive biomaterials designed to address existing pathologies or guide host-material integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.