Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28377988›Full record

ReviewBone reports2017

Bone fracture healing in mechanobiological modeling: A review of principles and methods.

Mohammad S Ghiasi, Jason Chen, Ashkan Vaziri, Edward K Rodriguez, Ara Nazarian

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Bone reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

183 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review and meta-analyses on animal models used in bone adhesive research.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Clinical outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures: the influence of fracture pattern and patient specific risk factors.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

123 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

5 authors.

Mohammad S GhiasiCenter for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Jason ChenCenter for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ashkan VaziriDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Edward K RodriguezCarl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ara NazarianCenter for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone fracture is a very common body injury. The healing process is physiologically complex, involving both biological and mechanical aspects. Following a fracture, cell migration, cell/tissue differentiation, tissue synthesis, and cytokine and growth factor release occur, regulated by the mechanical environment. Over the past decade, bone healing simulation and modeling has been employed to understand its details and mechanisms, to investigate specific clinical questions, and to design healing strategies. The goal of this effort is to review the history and the most recent work in bone healing simulations with an emphasis on both biological and mechanical properties. Therefore, we provide a brief review of the biology of bone fracture repair, followed by an outline of the key growth factors and mechanical factors influencing it. We then compare different methodologies of bone healing simulation, including conceptual modeling (qualitative modeling of bone healing to understand the general mechanisms), biological modeling (considering only the biological factors and processes), and mechanobiological modeling (considering both biological aspects and mechanical environment). Finally we evaluate different components and clinical applications of bone healing simulation such as mechanical stimuli, phases of bone healing, and angiogenesis.

Indexed as

AngiogenesisBiological modelingBone fracture healingCallusComputational modelingFinite elementGrowth factorsHematomaMathematical modelingMechanical stimuliMechanobiological modeling

Identifiers

PMID28377988
PMCPMC5365304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.