Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28078283›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2016

Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis: An Effective Method for Bone Regeneration.

Danyang Zhao, Yu Wang, Dong Han

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Upward vectors for osteogenic distraction treatment in secondary chronic intracranial hypertension in children undergoing scaphocephaly surgery: 2 cases reported.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Danyang ZhaoDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 639, Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai 200011, China.
Yu WangDepartment of Geriatrics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 639, Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai 200011, China.
Dong HanDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 639, Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai 200011, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6083-6913
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of bone defects is challenging and controversial. As a new technology, periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) uses the osteogenicity of periosteum, which creates an artificial space between the bone surface and periosteum to generate new bone by gradually expanding the periosteum with no need for corticotomy. Using the newly formed bone of PDO to treat bone defects is effective, which can not only avoid the occurrence of immune-related complications, but also solve the problem of insufficient donor. This review elucidates the availability of PDO in the aspects of mechanisms, devices, strategies, and measures. Moreover, we also focus on the future prospects of PDO and hope that PDO will be applied to the clinical treatment of bone defects in the future.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationAnimalsHumansMandibleOsteogenesis, DistractionPeriosteumRabbitsRats

Identifiers

PMID28078283
PMCPMC5203878
OpenAlexW2561291311

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.