ArticleInternational journal of biomaterials2018
Injectable Hydrogel versus Plastically Compressed Collagen Scaffold for Central Nervous System Applications.
Article in International journal of biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decellularized peripheral nerve as an injectable delivery vehicle for neural applications.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2022Article
- In Situ-Forming Cellulose/Albumin-Based Injectable Hydrogels for Localized Antitumor Therapy.Polymers · 2021Article
- An Additively Manufactured Sample Holder to Measure the Controlled Release of Vancomycin from Collagen Laminates.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- The use of hydrogel-delivered extracellular vesicles in recovery of motor function in stroke: a testable experimental hypothesis for clinical translation including behavioral and neuroimaging assessment approaches.Neural regeneration research · 2021Article
- Taking central nervous system regenerative therapies to the clinic: curing rodentsNeural regeneration research · 2020Review
- Hydrogels as Potential Nano-, Micro- and Macro-Scale Systems for Controlled Drug Delivery.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central Nervous System (CNS) repair has been a challenge, due to limited CNS tissue regenerative capacity. The emerging tools that neural engineering has to offer have opened new pathways towards the discovery of novel therapeutic approaches for CNS disorders. Collagen has been a preferable material for neural tissue engineering due to its similarity to the extracellular matrix, its biocompatibility, and antigenicity. The aim was to compare properties of a plastically compressed collagen hydrogel with the ones of a promising collagen-genipin injectable hydrogel and a collagen-only hydrogel for clinical CNS therapy applications. The focus was demonstrating the effects of genipin cross-linking versus plastic compression methodology on a collagen hydrogel and the impact of each method on clinical translatability. The results showed that injectable collagen-genipin hydrogel is better clinical translation material. Full collagen compression seemed to form extremely stiff hydrogels (up to about 2300 kPa) so, according to our findings, a compression level of up to 75% should be considered for CNS applications, being in line with CNS stiffness. Taking that into consideration, partially compressed collagen 3D hydrogel systems may be a good tunable way to mimic the natural hierarchical model of the human body, potentially facilitating neural repair application.
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.