Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28540307›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2017

Decellularization Strategies for Regenerative Medicine: From Processing Techniques to Applications.

Anna Gilpin, Yong Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 339 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
339citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. NovoMemHistology and histopathology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Decellularized testicular bio-scaffolds driveFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

279 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

2 authors.

Anna GilpinDepartment of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Yong YangDepartment of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4305-8029

Funding

Biomimetic Alveolar Interstitium Model for Investigation of Nanomaterials-induced FibrogenesisR15GM122953 · NIGMS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI YANG, YONG · 2016 to 2016
$431k
NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM122953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the gap between donors and patients in need of an organ transplant continues to widen, research in regenerative medicine seeks to provide alternative strategies for treatment. One of the most promising techniques for tissue and organ regeneration is decellularization, in which the extracellular matrix (ECM) is isolated from its native cells and genetic material in order to produce a natural scaffold. The ECM, which ideally retains its inherent structural, biochemical, and biomechanical cues, can then be recellularized to produce a functional tissue or organ. While decellularization can be accomplished using chemical and enzymatic, physical, or combinative methods, each strategy has both benefits and drawbacks. The focus of this review is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in terms of their ability to retain desired ECM characteristics for particular tissues and organs. Additionally, a few applications of constructs engineered using decellularized cell sheets, tissues, and whole organs are discussed.

Indexed as

Extracellular MatrixHumansRegenerative MedicineTissue EngineeringTissue Scaffolds

Identifiers

PMID28540307
PMCPMC5429943

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.