Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24860823›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2014

Macrophage plasticity in skeletal muscle repair.

Elena Rigamonti, Paola Zordan, Clara Sciorati, Patrizia Rovere-Querini, Silvia Brunelli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Enhancing Bone Healing with a Priming Stimulus.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Microorganisms · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 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

5 authors.

Elena RigamontiDivision of Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cells and Gene Therapy, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano, Italy.
Paola ZordanDivision of Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cells and Gene Therapy, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6915-5535
Clara ScioratiDivision of Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cells and Gene Therapy, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano, Italy.
Patrizia Rovere-QueriniDivision of Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cells and Gene Therapy, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano, Italy ; San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano, Italy.
Silvia BrunelliDivision of Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cells and Gene Therapy, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano, Italy ; Department of Health Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, via Cadore 48, 20900 Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1753-5346

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macrophages are one of the first barriers of host defence against pathogens. Beyond their role in innate immunity, macrophages play increasingly defined roles in orchestrating the healing of various injured tissues. Perturbations of macrophage function and/or activation may result in impaired regeneration and fibrosis deposition as described in several chronic pathological diseases. Heterogeneity and plasticity have been demonstrated to be hallmarks of macrophages. In response to environmental cues they display a proinflammatory (M1) or an alternative anti-inflammatory (M2) phenotype. A lot of evidence demonstrated that after acute injury M1 macrophages infiltrate early to promote the clearance of necrotic debris, whereas M2 macrophages appear later to sustain tissue healing. Whether the sequential presence of two different macrophage populations results from a dynamic shift in macrophage polarization or from the recruitment of new circulating monocytes is a subject of ongoing debate. In this paper, we discuss the current available information about the role that different phenotypes of macrophages plays after injury and during the remodelling phase in different tissue types, with particular attention to the skeletal muscle.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsHumansMacrophage ActivationMacrophagesModels, ImmunologicalMuscle, SkeletalMyositisRegenerationWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID24860823
PMCPMC4016840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.