ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2017
In vivo evaluation of a novel nanocomposite porous 3D scaffold in a rabbit model: histological analysis.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data-driven multiscale design of composite biomaterials: Integrating experiments, imaging, and computational modeling for biomedical engineering.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Eco-friendly bio-nanocomposites: pioneering sustainable biomedical advancements in engineering.Discover nano · 2024Review
- Article
- Recent Developments in Polymer Nanocomposites for Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Bioresorbable Chitosan-Based Bone Regeneration Scaffold Using Various Bioceramics and the Alteration of Photoinitiator Concentration in an Extended UV Photocrosslinking Reaction.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed Silica-Based Bioactive Glass Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Biological Response to a Novel Hybrid Polyoligomer:Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The healing of load-bearing segmental defects in long bones is a challenge due to the complex nature of the weight that affects the bone part and due to bending, shearing, axial, and torsional forces. An innovative porous 3D scaffolds implant of CaCO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.