Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24689032›Full record

ReviewGlobal cardiology science & practice2013

Hydrogel scaffolds for tissue engineering: Progress and challenges.

Ibrahim M El-Sherbiny, Magdi H Yacoub

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global cardiology science & practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 349 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
349citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

349 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Advancements in Functional Polymeric Scaffolds for Scar-Free Skin Regeneration.Polymer science & technology (Washington, D.C.) · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Tunable PVA-Alginate/FeACS omega · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

289 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ibrahim M El-SherbinyCenter for Materials Science, University of Science and Technology, Zewail City of Science and Technology, 6th October City, 12588 Giza, Egypt.
Magdi H YacoubHarefield Heart Science Centre, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Designing of biologically active scaffolds with optimal characteristics is one of the key factors for successful tissue engineering. Recently, hydrogels have received a considerable interest as leading candidates for engineered tissue scaffolds due to their unique compositional and structural similarities to the natural extracellular matrix, in addition to their desirable framework for cellular proliferation and survival. More recently, the ability to control the shape, porosity, surface morphology, and size of hydrogel scaffolds has created new opportunities to overcome various challenges in tissue engineering such as vascularization, tissue architecture and simultaneous seeding of multiple cells. This review provides an overview of the different types of hydrogels, the approaches that can be used to fabricate hydrogel matrices with specific features and the recent applications of hydrogels in tissue engineering. Special attention was given to the various design considerations for an efficient hydrogel scaffold in tissue engineering. Also, the challenges associated with the use of hydrogel scaffolds were described.

Indexed as

bioadhesionbiocompatibility, tissue engineeringbiodegradabilityhydrogelsscaffolds

Identifiers

PMID24689032
PMCPMC3963751

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.