Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25453267›Full record

ReviewAdvanced drug delivery reviews2015

External physical and biochemical stimulation to enhance skeletal muscle bioengineering.

Christoph Handschin, Askan Mortezavi, Jan Plock, Daniel Eberli

Abstract readReview
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. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Bioinks and Bioprinting Strategies for Skeletal Muscle Tissue Engineering.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Muscle Wasting Diseases: Novel Targets and Treatments.Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2019
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Plasticity of the Muscle Stem Cell Microenvironment.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2017
    Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Christoph Handschin *
Askan Mortezavi *
Jan Plock
Daniel Eberli

Funding

European Research Council 616830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCell based muscle tissue engineering carries the potential to revert the functional loss of muscle tissue caused by disease and trauma. Although muscle tissue can be bioengineered using various precursor cells, major limitations still remain. RECENT

findingsIn the last decades several cellular pathways playing a crucial role in muscle tissue regeneration have been described. These pathways can be influenced by external stimuli and they not only orchestrate the regenerative process after physiologic wear and muscle trauma, but also play an important part in aging and maintaining the stem cell niche, which is required to maintain long-term muscle function. SUMMARY: In this review article we will highlight possible new avenues using external physical and biochemical stimulation in order to optimize muscle bioengineering.

Indexed as

Electric StimulationHumansMuscle, SkeletalPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesPhysical StimulationRegenerative MedicineTissue EngineeringPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesCell regenerationContractilityIncontinenceMuscle precursor cellsMyoblastRegenerative medicineStem cellsUrology

Identifiers

PMID25453267
PMCPMC4444527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.