Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29651520›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2018

[Surface modifications of implants. Part 2 : Clinical application].

Marcus Jäger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marcus JägerKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandst. 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. sekretariat-uc_oc@uk-essen.de.
University of Duisburg-Essen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The chemical composition, surface structure and topography of a biomaterial have an essential influence on the effects of an implant in the human body. In orthopedic and trauma surgery they make a relevant contribution to solve the current and future challenges. Particularly high are the requirements of permanent implants in bone. Besides material aging due to oxidation, implants are subjected to cyclic loading that leads to relevant biomechanical wear and abrasion. To date significant efforts have been made to minimize adverse implant-associated immunoreactions as well as the risk of periprosthetic infections. This review gives an overview of surface modifications of implants designed for clinical application and their effects in vivo. Beside material-specific and biological principles, different surface modifications for distinct clinical applications are presented. Furthermore, current developmental strategies for the targeted clinical application of implant surfaces are outlined.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsProstheses and ImplantsHumansSurface PropertiesBiocompatible MaterialsBiocompatibilityMaterialMaterial agingOsteointegrationSurface structure

Identifiers

PMID29651520
OpenAlexW2884830775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.