ReviewNPJ Regenerative medicine2018
Regenerative medicine and war: a front-line focus for UK defence.
Review in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthesis, Characterization, and Enzyme Conjugation of Polycaprolactone Nanofibers for Tissue Engineering.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Evaluating polymeric biomaterials to improve next generation wound dressing design.Biomaterials research · 2022Review
- Fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo: a hospital-based retrospective descriptive cohort study assessing correlates of adult mortality.BMC emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Secondary denervation is a chronic pathophysiologic sequela of volumetric muscle loss.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2021Article
- Firearms-related skeletal muscle trauma: pathophysiology and novel approaches for regeneration.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2021Review
- In Situ Crosslinking Bionanocomposite Hydrogels with Potential for Wound Healing Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2019Article
- Uptake and Release of Species from Carbohydrate Containing Organogels and Hydrogels.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan saw the advancement of deployed trauma care to a point never before seen in war. The rapid translation of lessons from combat casualty care research, facilitated by an appetite for risk, contributed to year-on-year improvements in care of the injured. These paradigms, however, can only ever halt the progression of damage. Regenerative medicine approaches, in contrast, hold a truly disruptive potential to go beyond the cessation of damage from blast or ballistic trauma, to stimulate its reversal, and to do so from a very early point following injury. The internationally distributed and, in parts austere environments in which operational medical care is delivered provide an almost unique challenge to the development and translation of regenerative medicine technologies. In parallel, however, an inherent appetite for risk means that Defence will always be an early adopter. In focusing our operational priorities for regenerative medicine, the authors conducted a review of the current research landscape in the UK and abroad and sought wide clinical opinion. Our priorities are all applicable very far forward in the patient care pathway, and are focused on three broad and currently under-researched areas, namely: (a) blood, as an engineered tissue; (b) the mechanobiology of deep tissue loss and mechanobiological approaches to regeneration, and; (c) modification of the endogenous response. In focusing on these areas, we hope to engender the development of regenerative solutions for improved functional recovery from injuries sustained in conflict.
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.