Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25776947›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2015

The current state of scaffolds for musculoskeletal regenerative applications.

Benjamin D Smith, Daniel A Grande

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Biologic Augmentation of Isolated Meniscal Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  12. Putting Hybrid Nanomaterials to Work for Biomedical Applications.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Layered Double Hydroxides: A Novel Promising 2D Nanomaterial for Bone Diseases Treatment.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Advanced Gene Therapy Strategies for the Repair of ACL Injuries.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review

11 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

2 authors.

Benjamin D SmithDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research and North Shore-LIJ Health System, 350 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA.
Daniel A GrandeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research and North Shore-LIJ Health System, 350 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disease and injury are highly prevalent conditions that lead to many surgical procedures. Autologous tissue transfer, allograft transplantation and nontissue prosthetics are currently used for the surgical treatment of critical-sized defects. However, the field of tissue engineering is actively investigating tissue-replacement solutions, many of which involve 3D scaffolds. Scaffolds must provide a balance of shape, biomechanical function and biocompatibility in order to achieve tissue replacement success. Different tissues can have different requirements for success, which has led to the development of various materials with unique characteristics. Articular cartilage scaffolds have the most robust clinical experience, with many scaffolds, mostly constructed of natural materials, showing promise, but levels of success vary. Tendon scaffolds also have proven clinical applications, with human-dermis-derived scaffolds showing the most potential. Synthetic and naturally derived meniscus scaffolds have been investigated in few clinical studies, but the results are encouraging. Bone scaffolds are limited to amorphous pastes and putties, owing to difficulties achieving adequate vascularization and biomechanical optimization. The complex physiological function and vascular demands of skeletal muscle have limited the widespread clinical use of scaffolds for engineering this tissue. Continued progress in preclinical study, not only of scaffolds, but also of other facets of tissue engineering, should enable the successful translation of musculoskeletal tissue engineering solutions to the clinic.

Indexed as

Tissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsBone RegenerationCartilageCartilage, ArticularHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesTendonsTreatment OutcomeBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

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.