Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29255480›Full record

ReviewJournal of biological engineering2017

Immunological challenges associated with artificial skin grafts: available solutions and stem cells in future design of synthetic skin.

Saurabh Dixit, Dieudonné R Baganizi, Rajnish Sahu, Ejowke Dosunmu, Atul Chaudhari, Komal Vig, Shreekumar R Pillai, Shree R Singh, Vida A Dennis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biological engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Delivering living medicines with biomaterials.Nature reviews. Materials · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. A biosynthetic thumb prosthesis.npj biomedical innovations · 2025
    Article
  13. Trends in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Advances in tissue engineering and biofabrication forBioprinting (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saurabh Dixit *Center for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Dieudonné R Baganizi *Center for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Rajnish Sahu *Center for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Ejowke DosunmuCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Atul ChaudhariCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Komal VigCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Shreekumar R PillaiCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Shree R SinghCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Vida A DennisCenter for Nanobiotechnology Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, 1627 Harris Way, Montgomery, AL 36104 USA.
Alabama State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The repair or replacement of damaged skins is still an important, challenging public health problem. Immune acceptance and long-term survival of skin grafts represent the major problem to overcome in grafting given that in most situations autografts cannot be used. The emergence of artificial skin substitutes provides alternative treatment with the capacity to reduce the dependency on the increasing demand of cadaver skin grafts. Over the years, considerable research efforts have focused on strategies for skin repair or permanent skin graft transplantations. Available skin substitutes include pre- or post-transplantation treatments of donor cells, stem cell-based therapies, and skin equivalents composed of bio-engineered acellular or cellular skin substitutes. However, skin substitutes are still prone to immunological rejection, and as such, there is currently no skin substitute available to overcome this phenomenon. This review focuses on the mechanisms of skin rejection and tolerance induction and outlines in detail current available strategies and alternatives that may allow achieving full-thickness skin replacement and repair.

Indexed as

BiomaterialImmune rejectionScaffoldsSkin allograftSkin substitutesSkin tissue engineeringStem cells

Identifiers

PMID29255480
PMCPMC5729423
OpenAlexW2773438263

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.