Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28060331›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2016

Biomechanical Characterization of Human Soft Tissues Using Indentation and Tensile Testing.

Michelle Griffin, Yaami Premakumar, Alexander Seifalian, Peter Edward Butler, Matthew Szarko

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Regional Variations in Mechanical Properties of Porcine Leptomeninges.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Needle-induced cavitation: A method to probe the local mechanics of brain tissue.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Michelle GriffinDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London (UCL); 12michellegriffin@gmail.com.
Yaami PremakumarAnatomy Department, St Georges University.
Alexander SeifalianDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London (UCL).
Peter Edward ButlerDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London (UCL); Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Department, Royal Free Hospital.
Matthew SzarkoAnatomy Department, St Georges University.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_15014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regenerative medicine aims to engineer materials to replace or restore damaged or diseased organs. The mechanical properties of such materials should mimic the human tissues they are aiming to replace; to provide the required anatomical shape, the materials must be able to sustain the mechanical forces they will experience when implanted at the defect site. Although the mechanical properties of tissue-engineered scaffolds are of great importance, many human tissues that undergo restoration with engineered materials have not been fully biomechanically characterized. Several compressive and tensile protocols are reported for evaluating materials, but with large variability it is difficult to compare results between studies. Further complicating the studies is the often destructive nature of mechanical testing. Whilst an understanding of tissue failure is important, it is also important to have knowledge of the elastic and viscoelastic properties under more physiological loading conditions. This report aims to provide a minimally destructive protocol to evaluate the compressive and tensile properties of human soft tissues. As examples of this technique, the tensile testing of skin and the compressive testing of cartilage are described. These protocols can also be directly applied to synthetic materials to ensure that the mechanical properties are similar to the native tissue. Protocols to assess the mechanical properties of human native tissue will allow a benchmark by which to create suitable tissue-engineered substitutes.

Indexed as

Regenerative MedicineTensile StrengthTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiomechanical PhenomenaCartilageHumansMaterials Testing

Identifiers

PMID28060331
PMCPMC5226394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.