Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28536347›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2017

The Current Use of Stem Cells in Bladder Tissue Regeneration and Bioengineering.

Yvonne Y Chan, Samantha K Sandlin, Eric A Kurzrock, Stephanie L Osborn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. From waste to wealth: Repurposing slaughterhouse waste for xenotransplantation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Bioengineering Approaches for Bladder Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Tissue Engineering and Stem Cell Therapy in Pediatric Urology.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
    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

4 authors.

Yvonne Y ChanDepartment of Urology, Davis School of Medicine, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. yychan@ucdavis.edu.
Samantha K SandlinDepartment of Urology, Davis School of Medicine, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. sksandlin@ucdavis.edu.
Eric A KurzrockDepartment of Urology, Davis School of Medicine, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. eakurzrock@ucdavis.edu.
Stephanie L OsbornDepartment of Urology, Davis School of Medicine, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. sosborn@ucdavis.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many pathological processes including neurogenic bladder and malignancy necessitate bladder reconstruction, which is currently performed using intestinal tissue. The use of intestinal tissue, however, subjects patients to metabolic abnormalities, bladder stones, and other long-term sequelae, raising the need for a source of safe and reliable bladder tissue. Advancements in stem cell biology have catapulted stem cells to the center of many current tissue regeneration and bioengineering strategies. This review presents the recent advancements in the use of stem cells in bladder tissue bioengineering.

Indexed as

bladderstem cellstissue engineeringurothelium

Identifiers

PMID28536347
PMCPMC5423492

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.