Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26890039›Full record

ReviewBiomaterials2016

Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response.

Joseph M Aamodt, David W Grainger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomaterials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 196 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
196citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

196 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Material-Assisted Strategies for Osteochondral Defect Repair.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of Bovine Collagen Manufactured via Cellular Agriculture.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

136 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.

Joseph M AamodtDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112-5820, USA.
David W GraingerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112-5820, USA; Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112-5820, USA. Electronic address: david.grainger@utah.edu.

Funding

Foreign Body Response as a Performance Metric for Implanted ScaffoldsR01EB011879 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI GRAINGER, DAVID W · 2010 to 2013
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS EB011879NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB011879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular matrix (ECM) collectively represents a class of naturally derived proteinaceous biomaterials purified from harvested organs and tissues with increasing scientific focus and utility in tissue engineering and repair. This interest stems predominantly from the largely unproven concept that processed ECM biomaterials as natural tissue-derived matrices better integrate with host tissue than purely synthetic biomaterials. Nearly every tissue type has been decellularized and processed for re-use as tissue-derived ECM protein implants and scaffolds. To date, however, little consensus exists for defining ECM compositions or sources that best constitute decellularized biomaterials that might better heal, integrate with host tissues and avoid the foreign body response (FBR). Metrics used to assess ECM performance in biomaterial implants are arbitrary and contextually specific by convention. Few comparisons for in vivo host responses to ECM implants from different sources are published. This review discusses current ECM-derived biomaterials characterization methods including relationships between ECM material compositions from different sources, properties and host tissue response as implants. Relevant preclinical in vivo models are compared along with their associated advantages and limitations, and the current state of various metrics used to define material integration and biocompatibility are discussed. Commonly applied applications of these ECM-derived biomaterials as stand-alone implanted matrices and devices are compared with respect to host tissue responses.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsExtracellular MatrixExtracellular Matrix ProteinsHumansTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsExtracellular Matrix ProteinsDecellularizedECMImplantsIntegrationProtein scaffoldsTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID26890039
PMCPMC4785021

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.