Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24127230›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology

Injectable foams for regenerative medicine.

Edna M Prieto, Jonathan M Page, Andrew J Harmata, Scott A Guelcher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Edna M PrietoDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Jonathan M Page
Andrew J Harmata
Scott A Guelcher

Funding

Skin Regeneration with Stem Cells and ScaffoldsR01AR056138 · NIAMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI DAVIDSON, JEFFREY M., GUELCHER, SCOTT A · 2009 to 2013
$3.3M
NIAMS NIH HHS 5R01AR056138-02NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR056138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The design of injectable biomaterials has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Many injectable biomaterials, such as hydrogels and calcium phosphate cements (CPCs), have nanoscale pores that limit the rate of cellular migration and proliferation. While introduction of macroporosity has been suggested to increase cellular infiltration and tissue healing, many conventional methods for generating macropores often require harsh processing conditions that preclude their use in injectable foams. In recent years, processes such as porogen leaching, gas foaming, and emulsion-templating have been adapted to generate macroporosity in injectable CPCs, hydrogels, and hydrophobic polymers. While some of the more mature injectable foam technologies have been evaluated in clinical trials, there are challenges remaining to be addressed, such as the biocompatibility and ultimate fate of the sacrificial phase used to generate pores within the foam after it sets in situ. Furthermore, while implantable scaffolds can be washed extensively to remove undesirable impurities, all of the components required to synthesize injectable foams must be injected into the defect. Thus, every compound in the foam must be biocompatible and noncytotoxic at the concentrations utilized. As future research addresses these critical challenges, injectable macroporous foams are anticipated to have an increasingly significant impact on improving patient outcomes for a number of clinical procedures.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsDosage FormsHydrogelsInjectionsNanostructuresHumansRegenerative MedicineBiocompatible MaterialsDosage FormsHydrogels

Identifiers

PMID24127230
PMCPMC3945605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.