Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24504113›Full record

ArticleBiomatter2014

Comprehensive histological evaluation of bone implants.

Claudia Rentsch, Wolfgang Schneiders, Suzanne Manthey, Barbe Rentsch, Stephan Rammelt

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomatter, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia RentschDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden, Germany; University Hospital and Medical Faculty; Technische Universität Dresden; Centre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research; Dresden, Germany.
Wolfgang SchneidersDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden, Germany.
Suzanne MantheyDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden, Germany; University Hospital and Medical Faculty; Technische Universität Dresden; Centre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research; Dresden, Germany.
Barbe RentschUniversity Hospital and Medical Faculty; Technische Universität Dresden; Centre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research; Dresden, Germany.
Stephan RammeltDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden, Germany; University Hospital and Medical Faculty; Technische Universität Dresden; Centre for Translational Bone, Joint and Soft Tissue Research; Dresden, Germany.
TU Dresden · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate and assess bone regeneration in sheep in combination with new implant materials classical histological staining methods as well as immunohistochemistry may provide additional information to standard radiographs or computer tomography. Available published data of bone defect regenerations in sheep often present none or sparely labeled histological images. Repeatedly, the exact location of the sample remains unclear, detail enlargements are missing and the labeling of different tissues or cells is absent. The aim of this article is to present an overview of sample preparation, staining methods and their benefits as well as a detailed histological description of bone regeneration in the sheep tibia. General histological staining methods like hematoxylin and eosin, Masson-Goldner trichrome, Movat's pentachrome and alcian blue were used to define new bone formation within a sheep tibia critical size defect containing a polycaprolactone-co-lactide (PCL) scaffold implanted for 3 months (n = 4). Special attention was drawn to describe the bone healing patterns down to cell level. Additionally one histological quantification method and immunohistochemical staining methods are described.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsActinsAnimalsBone RegenerationBone SubstitutesFemaleMuscle, SmoothPolyestersSheepStaining and LabelingTibiaTissue ScaffoldsActinsBone Substitutespolycaprolactone-co-lactidePolyestersbone implantshistologypolycaprolactone-co-lactide scaffoldsheep

Identifiers

PMID24504113
PMCPMC3979890
OpenAlexW1995904566

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.