Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28647885›Full record

ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2017

Osteomacs and Bone Regeneration.

Lena Batoon, Susan Marie Millard, Liza Jane Raggatt, Allison Robyn Pettit

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing 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

84 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. COX-2 in Fracture Callus Chondro-Osseous Junction Osteoclasts Regulates Chondrocyte Hypertrophy and Callus Vasculogenesis.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  12. Engineering Efferocytosis for Bone Regeneration.Macromolecular bioscience · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Efferocytosis and Bone Dynamics.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Amorphous TiOBiomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2024
    Article

24 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

4 authors.

Lena BatoonBones and Immunology Laboratory, Cancer Biology and Care Program, Mater Research Institute - The University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Susan Marie MillardBones and Immunology Laboratory, Cancer Biology and Care Program, Mater Research Institute - The University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Liza Jane RaggattBones and Immunology Laboratory, Cancer Biology and Care Program, Mater Research Institute - The University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Allison Robyn PettitBones and Immunology Laboratory, Cancer Biology and Care Program, Mater Research Institute - The University of Queensland, Translational Research Institute, 37 Kent Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia. allison.pettit@mater.uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMounting evidence supporting the critical contribution of macrophages, in particular osteal macrophages, to bone regeneration is reviewed. We specifically examine the potential role of macrophages in the basic multicellular units coordinating lifelong bone regeneration via remodelling and bone regeneration in response to injury. We review and discuss the distinctions between macrophage and osteoclast contributions to bone homeostasis, particularly the dichotomous role of the colony-stimulating factor 1-colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor axis. RECENT

findingsThe impact of inflammation associated with aging and other hallmarks of aging, including senescence, on macrophage function is addressed in the context of osteoporosis and delayed fracture repair. Resident macrophages versus recruited macrophage contributions to fracture healing are also discussed. We identify some of the remaining knowledge gaps that will need to be closed in order to maximise benefits from therapeutically modulating or mimicking the function of macrophages to improve bone health and regeneration over a lifetime.

Indexed as

AgingBone RegenerationCellular SenescenceFracture HealingHomeostasisHumansInflammationMacrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorMacrophagesOsteoclastsOsteoporosisReceptor, Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorMacrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorReceptor, Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorBone regenerationFracture repairInflammagingMacrophagesOsteoporosisSenescence

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.