Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25434371›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2015

Corneal tissue engineering: recent advances and future perspectives.

Chiara E Ghezzi, Jelena Rnjak-Kovacina, David L Kaplan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. A 3DmSphere · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

8 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

3 authors.

Chiara E Ghezzi1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.
Jelena Rnjak-Kovacina1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.
David L Kaplan1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.

Funding

Translational Bioreactors - Engineering Complex TissuesP41EB002520 · NIBIB · TUFTS UNIVERSITY MEDFORD · PI KAPLAN, DAVID L. · 2004 to 2018
$16.7M
Tissue Engineering Cornea ReplacementsR01EY020856 · NEI · TUFTS UNIVERSITY MEDFORD · PI KAPLAN, DAVID L. · 2010 to 2016
$2.7M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY020856NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB002520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To address the growing need for corneal transplants two main approaches are being pursued: allogenic and synthetic materials. Allogenic tissue from human donors is currently the preferred choice; however, there is a worldwide shortage in donated corneal tissue. In addition, tissue rejection often limits the long-term success of this approach. Alternatively, synthetic homologs to donor corneal grafts are primarily considered temporary replacements until suitable donor tissue becomes available, as they result in a high incidence of graft failure. Tissue engineered cornea analogs would provide effective cornea tissue substitutes and alternatives to address the need to reduce animal testing of commercial products. Recent progress toward these needs is reviewed here, along with future perspectives.

Indexed as

CorneaAnimalsHumansTissue Engineering

Identifiers

PMID25434371
PMCPMC4442593

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.