Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26989431›Full record

ArticleExpert review of dermatology2012

Human skin organ culture for assessment of chemically induced skin damage.

James Varani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Expert review of dermatology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A review with updated perspectives on in vitro and in vivo wound healing models.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2023
    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

1 author.

James VaraniDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA, Tel.: +1 734 615 0298, varani@umich.edu.

Funding

TOPICAL RETINOIDS FOR DIABETIC FOOT ULCERSR01DK059169 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI VARANI, JAMES · 2001 to 2003
$1.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK059169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The move away from animal models for skin safety testing is inevitable. It is a question of when, not if. As skin safety studies move away from traditional animal-based approaches, a number of replacement technologies are becoming available. Human skin in organ culture is one such technology. Organ-cultured skin has several features that distinguish it from other technologies. First and foremost, organ-cultured skin is real skin. Almost by definition, therefore, it approximates the intact skin better than other alternative models. Organ culture is an easy-to-use and relatively inexpensive approach to preclinical safety assessment. Although organ culture is not likely to replace high-throughput enzyme assays or monolayer culture/skin equivalent cultures for initial compound assessment, organ culture should find use when the list of compounds to be evaluated is small and when simpler models have narrowed the dose range. Organ-cultured skin also provides a platform for mechanistic studies.

Indexed as

contact irritationcontact sensitizationcorrosivityorgan cultureorganotypic cultureskin

Identifiers

PMID26989431
PMCPMC4792533

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.