Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24964011›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Tissue engineering in animal models for urinary diversion: a systematic review.

Marije Sloff, Rob de Vries, Paul Geutjes, Joanna IntHout, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Egbert Oosterwijk, Wout Feitz

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Stem Cell Factories - the Rebirth of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2016
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Tissue-engineered urinary conduits.Current urology reports · 2015
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marije SloffDepartment of Urology, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rob de VriesSYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal experimentation), Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Paul GeutjesDepartment of Urology, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joanna IntHoutDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Merel Ritskes-HoitingaSYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal experimentation), Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Egbert OosterwijkDepartment of Urology, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wout FeitzDepartment of Urology, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) approaches may provide alternatives for gastrointestinal tissue in urinary diversion. To continue to clinically translatable studies, TERM alternatives need to be evaluated in (large) controlled and standardized animal studies. Here, we investigated all evidence for the efficacy of tissue engineered constructs in animal models for urinary diversion. Studies investigating this subject were identified through a systematic search of three different databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science). From each study, animal characteristics, study characteristics and experimental outcomes for meta-analyses were tabulated. Furthermore, the reporting of items vital for study replication was assessed. The retrieved studies (8 in total) showed extreme heterogeneity in study design, including animal models, biomaterials and type of urinary diversion. All studies were feasibility studies, indicating the novelty of this field. None of the studies included appropriate control groups, i.e. a comparison with the classical treatment using GI tissue. The meta-analysis showed a trend towards successful experimentation in larger animals although no specific animal species could be identified as the most suitable model. Larger animals appear to allow a better translation to the human situation, with respect to anatomy and surgical approaches. It was unclear whether the use of cells benefits the formation of a neo urinary conduit. The reporting of the methodology and data according to standardized guidelines was insufficient and should be improved to increase the value of such publications. In conclusion, animal models in the field of TERM for urinary diversion have probably been chosen for reasons other than their predictive value. Controlled and comparative long term animal studies, with adequate methodological reporting are needed to proceed to clinical translatable studies. This will aid in good quality research with the reduction in the use of animals and an increase in empirical evidence of biomedical research.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansModels, AnimalSpecies SpecificityTissue EngineeringUrinary Diversion

Identifiers

PMID24964011
PMCPMC4070912

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.