Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23244692›Full record

ArticleZebrafish2012

Factors promoting increased rate of tissue regeneration: the zebrafish fin as a tool for examining tissue engineering design concepts.

Vijay P Boominathan, Tracie L Ferreira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zebrafish, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Vijay P BoominathanDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Massachusetts , North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747, USA.
Tracie L Ferreira

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Student interest in topics of tissue engineering is increasing exponentially as the number of universities offering programs in bioengineering are on the rise. Bioengineering encompasses all of the STEM categories: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Inquiry-based learning is one of the most effective techniques for promoting student learning and has been demonstrated to have a high impact on learning outcomes. We have designed program outcomes for our bioengineering program that require tiered activities to develop problem solving skills, peer evaluation techniques, and promote team work. While it is ideal to allow students to ask unique questions and design their own experiments, this can be difficult for instructors to have reagents and supplies available for a variety of activities. Zebrafish can be easily housed, and multiple variables can be tested on a large enough group to provide statistical value, lending them well to inquiry-based learning modules. We have designed a laboratory activity that takes observation of fin regeneration to the next level: analyzing conditions that may impact regeneration. Tissue engineers seek to define the optimum conditions to grow tissue for replacement parts. The field of tissue engineering is likely to benefit from understanding natural mechanisms of regeneration and the factors that influence the rate of regeneration. We have outlined the results of varying temperature on fin regeneration and propose other inquiry modules such as the role of pH in fin regeneration. Furthermore, we have provided useful tools for developing critical thinking and peer review of research ideas, assessment guidelines, and grading rubrics for the activities associated with this exercise.

Indexed as

Animal FinsAnimalsHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationScienceStudentsTemperatureTissue EngineeringZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID23244692
PMCPMC3698626

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.