Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28852649›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2017

The Role of Three-Dimensional Scaffolds in Treating Long Bone Defects: Evidence from Preclinical and Clinical Literature-A Systematic Review.

Alice Roffi, Gopal Shankar Krishnakumar, Natalia Gostynska, Elizaveta Kon, Christian Candrian, Giuseppe Filardo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Regenerative biomaterials · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Alice RoffiNanobiotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2683-3743
Gopal Shankar KrishnakumarDepartment of Biotechnology, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam, Erode, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0608-4658
Natalia GostynskaNanobiotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, Bologna, Italy.
Elizaveta KonDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Manzoni 113, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0649-2336
Christian CandrianDivision of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Regional Hospital of Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland.
Giuseppe FilardoNanobiotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8136-0977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long bone defects represent a clinical challenge. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) has been developed to overcome problems associated with conventional methods. The aim of this study was to assess the BTE strategies available in preclinical and clinical settings and the current evidence supporting this approach. A systematic literature screening was performed on PubMed database, searching for both preclinical (only on large animals) and clinical studies. The following string was used: "(Scaffold OR Implant) AND (Long bone defect OR segmental bone defect OR large bone defect OR bone loss defect)." The search retrieved a total of 1573 articles: 51 preclinical and 4 clinical studies were included. The great amount of preclinical papers published over the past few years showed promising findings in terms of radiological and histological evidence. Unfortunately, this in vivo situation is not reflected by a corresponding clinical impact, with few published papers, highly heterogeneous and with small patient populations. Several aspects should be further investigated to translate positive preclinical findings into clinical protocols: the identification of the best biomaterial, with both biological and biomechanical suitable properties, and the selection of the best choice between cells, GFs, or their combination through standardized models to be validated by randomized trials.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsBone and BonesTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBone TransplantationHumansBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID28852649
PMCPMC5567443

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.