Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25446135›Full record

ReviewAdvanced drug delivery reviews2015

Biologics for tendon repair.

Denitsa Docheva, Sebastian A Müller, Martin Majewski, Christopher H Evans

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04640662 (The Effects of Platelet Rich Plasma Versus Prolotherapy on Pain and Function in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy), which is not on this map. Cited by 313 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
313citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
22.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04640662 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Platelet Rich Plasma Versus Prolotherapy on Pain and Function in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MalayaRan2020 to 2021Enrolled60ConditionsRotator Cuff Tendinosis, Supraspinatus Strain, PRPArmsPlatelet-Rich Plasma, Prolotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

313 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 697 citations in OpenAlex.

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

253 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Denitsa DochevaExperimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University, Nussbaumstr. 20, 80336 Munich, Germany. Electronic address: denitsa.docheva@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Sebastian A MüllerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Martin MajewskiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031 Basel, Switzerland.
Christopher H EvansRehabilitation Medicine Research Center, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
University Hospital of Basel · CHLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMayo Clinic · US

Funding

A Biological Basis for Repair of the ACLR01AR052809 · NIAMS · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI EVANS, CHRISTOPHER HOWARD · 2006 to 2009
$1.9M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR052809
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tendon injuries are common and present a clinical challenge to orthopedic surgery mainly because these injuries often respond poorly to treatment and require prolonged rehabilitation. Therapeutic options used to repair ruptured tendons have consisted of suture, autografts, allografts, and synthetic prostheses. To date, none of these alternatives has provided a successful long-term solution, and often the restored tendons do not recover their complete strength and functionality. Unfortunately, our understanding of tendon biology lags far behind that of other musculoskeletal tissues, thus impeding the development of new treatment options for tendon conditions. Hence, in this review, after introducing the clinical significance of tendon diseases and the present understanding of tendon biology, we describe and critically assess the current strategies for enhancing tendon repair by biological means. These consist mainly of applying growth factors, stem cells, natural biomaterials and genes, alone or in combination, to the site of tendon damage. A deeper understanding of how tendon tissue and cells operate, combined with practical applications of modern molecular and cellular tools could provide the long awaited breakthrough in designing effective tendon-specific therapeutics and overall improvement of tendon disease management.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsGenetic TherapyHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsRegenerationStem Cell TransplantationTendonsBiocompatible MaterialsIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsCell-based therapyEmbryonic stem cellsGene therapyGrowth FactorsMesenchymal stem cellsNatural biomaterialsTendonTendon-derived cellsTendon repair

Identifiers

PMID25446135
PMCPMC4519231
OpenAlexW1972930867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.