Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25404179›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2015

Recent advances in ureteral tissue engineering.

Paul K J D de Jonge, Vasileios Simaioforidis, Paul J Geutjes, Egbert Oosterwijk, Wout F J Feitz

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Ureter reconstruction using a biotube in a canine model: A pilot stud.Journal of stem cells & regenerative medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Gelatin-grafted tubular asymmetric scaffolds promote ureteral regenerationFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Advances in surgical repair of ureteral injury].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul K J D de JongeDepartment of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Geert Grooteplein 26/28, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, paul.dejonge@radboudumc.nl.
Vasileios Simaioforidis
Paul J Geutjes
Egbert Oosterwijk
Wout F J Feitz
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRadboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reconstruction of long ureteral defects often warrants the use of graft tissue and extensive surgical procedures to maintain the safe transport of urine from the kidneys to the urinary bladder. Complication risks, graft failure-related morbidity, and the lack of suitable tissue are major concerns. Tissue engineering might offer an alternative treatment approach in these cases, but ureteral tissue engineering is still an underreported topic in current literature. In this review, the most recent published data regarding ureteral tissue engineering are presented and evaluated, with a focus on cell sources, implantation strategies, and (bio)materials.

Indexed as

Plastic Surgery ProceduresTissue EngineeringAnimalsHumansUreter

Identifiers

PMID25404179
PMCPMC4234891
OpenAlexW2162206419

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.