Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29685995›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2018

Animal models for bone tissue engineering and modelling disease.

Jacqui Anne McGovern, Michelle Griffin, Dietmar Werner Hutmacher

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
20.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

138 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 294 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review and meta-analyses on animal models used in bone adhesive research.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Surgical induction model of femoral defect in Wistar rats for bone repair histology.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Jacqui Anne McGovernCentre in Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4059, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4993-6745
Michelle GriffinCharles Wolfson Center for Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, NW3 2QG, UK.
Dietmar Werner HutmacherCentre in Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4059, Australia dietmar.hutmacher@qut.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5678-2134
Georgia Institute of Technology · USQueensland University of Technology · AUThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

Worldwide Cancer Research 15-1153
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue engineering and its clinical application, regenerative medicine, are instructing multiple approaches to aid in replacing bone loss after defects caused by trauma or cancer. In such cases, bone formation can be guided by engineered biodegradable and nonbiodegradable scaffolds with clearly defined architectural and mechanical properties informed by evidence-based research. With the ever-increasing expansion of bone tissue engineering and the pioneering research conducted to date, preclinical models are becoming a necessity to allow the engineered products to be translated to the clinic. In addition to creating smart bone scaffolds to mitigate bone loss, the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine is exploring methods to treat primary and secondary bone malignancies by creating models that mimic the clinical disease manifestation. This Review gives an overview of the preclinical testing in animal models used to evaluate bone regeneration concepts. Immunosuppressed rodent models have shown to be successful in mimicking bone malignancy via the implantation of human-derived cancer cells, whereas large animal models, including pigs, sheep and goats, are being used to provide an insight into bone formation and the effectiveness of scaffolds in induced tibial or femoral defects, providing clinically relevant similarity to human cases. Despite the recent progress, the successful translation of bone regeneration concepts from the bench to the bedside is rooted in the efforts of different research groups to standardise and validate the preclinical models for bone tissue engineering approaches.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone and BonesDisease Models, AnimalHumansNeoplasmsTissue Engineering3D printingBMPsBone defectBone metastasisBone regenerationCancer xenograftScaffoldsTibia segmental defect

Identifiers

PMID29685995
PMCPMC5963860
OpenAlexW2800126426

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.