SynthesisTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2016
The Value of Systematic Reviews in Estimating the Cost and Barriers to Translation in Tissue Engineering.
Synthesis in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral tissue spheroid, organoid, and organ-on chip microphysiological modeling strategies towards enhanced emulation of health and disease.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Review
- Recent regulatory developments in EU Medical Device Regulation and their impact on biomaterials translation.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Review
- Engineering soft-hard tissue interfaces in dental and craniofacial system by spatially controlled bioactivities.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Bioactive scaffolds integrated with micro-precise spatiotemporal delivery andEngineered regeneration · 2025Article
- Advances in ex vivo models and lab-on-a-chip devices for neural tissue engineering.Biomaterials · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little quantitative data exist concerning barriers that impede translation from bench to bedside. We systematically reviewed synthetic or biosynthetic polymer nerve scaffolds for peripheral nerve repair to study a defined research area that is beyond the discovery phase and has potential for clinical application. Using electronic and manual search methods, we identified published English language articles, where scaffolds were tested in preclinical animal models. A systematic review of these 416 reports estimated all costs related to the use of animals, surgery, and evaluation methods. The research studied 17 different nerves in eight animal species, with use of 65 evaluation methods at an estimated cost of $61,264,910 for the preclinical studies. A total of 127 surveys were sent to authors, of whom 12 could not be accessed electronically and 45 (39%) responded. Major causes for failure to translate included lack of a commercial partner, insufficient financial resources, a research program not involved in translation, and lack of expertise in regulatory affairs. This review emphasizes the urgent need for standardization of preclinical models and the need to establish better collaboration between laboratory investigators, clinicians, and the companies involved in commercialization. It identifies important areas for education of future investigators in the process of translation from discovery to improved health such as those funded by the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards.
Indexed as
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.