Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29433544›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2018

Scaffolds for the repair of bone defects in clinical studies: a systematic review.

Jian-Hua Zeng, Shi-Wei Liu, Long Xiong, Peng Qiu, Ling-Hua Ding, Shi-Lang Xiong, Jing-Tang Li, Xin-Gen Liao, Zhi-Ming Tang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Jian-Hua ZengDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi People's Hospital, No.152, Ai guo Road, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Shi-Wei LiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi medical college, Nanchang university, Nanchang, China.
Long XiongDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi People's Hospital, No.152, Ai guo Road, Nanchang, 330006, China. ncxionglong2@126.com.
Peng QiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi medical college, Nanchang university, Nanchang, China.
Ling-Hua DingDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi medical college, Nanchang university, Nanchang, China.
Shi-Lang XiongClinical Medicine, He University, Jinzhou, China.
Jing-Tang LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi People's Hospital, No.152, Ai guo Road, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Xin-Gen LiaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi People's Hospital, No.152, Ai guo Road, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Zhi-Ming TangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jiangxi People's Hospital, No.152, Ai guo Road, Nanchang, 330006, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review aims to summarize the clinical studies on the use of scaffolds in the repair of bony defects.

methodsThe relevant articles were searched through PubMed database. The following keywords and search terms were used: "scaffolds," "patient," "clinic," "bone repair," "bone regeneration," "repairing bone defect," "repair of bone," "osteanagenesis," "osteanaphysis," and "osteoanagenesis." The articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, performed by two reviewers.

resultsA total of 373 articles were obtained using PubMed database. After screening, 20 articles were identified as relevant for the purpose of this systematic review. We collected the data of biological scaffolds and synthetic scaffolds. There are eight clinical studies of biological scaffolds included collagen, gelatin, and cellular scaffolds for bone healing. In addition, 12 clinical studies of synthetic scaffolds on HAp, TCP, bonelike, and their complex scaffolds for repairing bone defects were involved in this systematic review.

conclusionsThere are a lot of clinical evidences showed that application of scaffolds had a good ability to facilitate bone repair and osteogenesis. However, the ideal and reliable guidelines are insufficiently applied and the number and quality of studies in this field remain to be improved.

Indexed as

Tissue ScaffoldsAnimalsBone DiseasesBone RegenerationClinical Trials as TopicHumansOsteogenesisTissue EngineeringWound HealingBone regenerationClinicalScaffolds

Identifiers

PMID29433544
PMCPMC5809923

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.