ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2013
In vivo biocompatibility evaluation of electrospun composite scaffolds by subcutaneous implantation in rat.
Article in Drug delivery and translational research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Alloy Scaffolds Incorporated With Tetramethylpyrazine-Loaded Composite Hydrogels Enhance Angiogenesis and Bone Repair for Femoral Head Osteonecrosis.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Engineering Drug-Eluting Ocular Bioadhesive "OcuTAPE" via Tannic Acid-Mediated Nanoparticle Bridging.Advanced functional materials · 2026Article
- Investigation of the In Vitro and In Vivo Biocompatibility of a Three-Dimensional Printed Thermoplastic Polyurethane/Polylactic Acid Blend for the Development of Tracheal Scaffolds.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Unmodified Gum Arabic/Chitosan/Nanohydroxyapatite Nanocomposite Hydrogels as Potential Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration.Polymers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In vivo biocompatibility of nanofibrous poly-L-lactic acid (P), poly-L-lactic acid/gelatin (PG), poly-L-lactic acid/hydroxyapatite (PH), and poly-L-lactic acid/gelatin/hydroxyapatite (PGH) scaffolds, useful in regenerative medicine and drug delivery, was evaluated by subcutaneous implantation in both male and female rats (n = 5) for up to 90 days. The body weight of each animal in the study was evaluated on a weekly basis, and no significant difference was noticed. Total and differential leukocyte counts displayed no inflammatory reaction due to scaffold implantation. Gross observation and histology of necropsied vital organs exhibited normal morphology of cell types and tissue, denying any systemic adverse reaction on distal organs. Histology of subcutaneous tissue surrounding scaffolds was done to assess any local toxic effect of implants and found all scaffolds to be compatible and nontoxic. Moreover, no remnant of scaffolds was observed in any of the histological sections, suggesting all scaffolds to be biodegradable. All the results in this study confirm that nanofibrous scaffolds P, PG, PH, and PGH are biocompatible and safe for bone tissue engineering application.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.