Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25597240›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in biomedical engineering2014

Clinical applications of surgical adhesives and sealants.

Lindsey Sanders, Jiro Nagatomi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in biomedical engineering, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Hydrogels in Oral Disease Management: A Review of Innovations in Drug Delivery and Tissue Regeneration.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Adhesive Tissue Engineered Scaffolds: Mechanisms and Applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
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

2 authors.

Lindsey SandersDepartment of Bioengineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.
Jiro NagatomiClemson University.

Funding

Targeted Nano-therapeutics for Neural RegenerationP20GM103444 · NIGMS · CLEMSON UNIVERSITY · PI MARKWALD, ROGER R, VYAVAHARE, NAREN R · 2012 to 2018
$14.9M
Development of Scar-Inhibiting Compliant Tissue AdhesiveR21EB008785 · NIBIB · CLEMSON UNIVERSITY · PI NAGATOMI, JIRO · 2010 to 2011
$384k
NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB008785NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the United States and Europe, the number of topical adhesives, surgical sealants, and hemostats approved for use in the surgical setting is ever expanding although no single device fills all medical and surgical needs to replace sutures. As more surgical procedures are performed through laparoscopic and robotic approaches, these devices are becoming more important, and current research is focused on solving the limitations of conventional wound treatments. This review article discusses clinical applications of various biologically derived and synthetic products that are currently available to surgeons and those that are in development.

Indexed as

CyanoacrylatesHemostatic TechniquesTissue AdhesivesCollagenDrug CombinationsHumansOligopeptidesPolyethylene GlycolsProteinsThrombinBio-glueCollagenCyanoacrylatesDrug CombinationsDuraSeal spinal sealantOligopeptidesPolyethylene GlycolsProteinsThrombinTissue Adhesives

Identifiers

PMID25597240
PMCPMC7997729

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.