Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30395949›Full record

ReviewPharmacological research2019

3D organ models-Revolution in pharmacological research?

Marie Weinhart, Andreas Hocke, Stefan Hippenstiel, Jens Kurreck, Sarah Hedtrich

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacological research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Nerve tissue model on a micropatterned surface: Axon guidance and neural regeneration.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Generation of a Perfusable 3D Lung Cancer Model by Digital Light Processing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Selection of natural biomaterials for micro-tissue and organ-on-chip models.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Nanocarriers for Skin Applications: Where Do We Stand?Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2022
    Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marie WeinhartFreie Universität Berlin, Institute for Chemistry and Biochemistry, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas HockeDept. of Infectious and Respiratory Diseases, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany.
Stefan HippenstielDept. of Infectious and Respiratory Diseases, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany.
Jens KurreckTechnical University Berlin, Institute for Biotechnology, Berlin, Germany.
Sarah HedtrichFreie Universität Berlin, Institute for Pharmacy, Pharmacology & Toxicology, Königin-Luise-Str. 2-4, Berlin, 14195, Germany. Electronic address: sarah.hedtrich@fu-berlin.de.
Freie Universität Berlin · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DETechnische Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D organ models have gained increasing attention as novel preclinical test systems and alternatives to animal testing. Over the years, many excellent in vitro tissue models have been developed. In parallel, microfluidic organ-on-a-chip tissue cultures have gained increasing interest for their ability to house several organ models on a single device and interlink these within a human-like environment. In contrast to these advancements, the development of human disease models is still in its infancy. Although major advances have recently been made, efforts still need to be intensified. Human disease models have proven valuable for their ability to closely mimic disease patterns in vitro, permitting the study of pathophysiological features and new treatment options. Although animal studies remain the gold standard for preclinical testing, they have major drawbacks such as high cost and ongoing controversy over their predictive value for several human conditions. Moreover, there is growing political and social pressure to develop alternatives to animal models, clearly promoting the search for valid, cost-efficient and easy-to-handle systems lacking interspecies-related differences. In this review, we discuss the current state of the art regarding 3D organ as well as the opportunities, limitations and future implications of their use.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsBiomedical ResearchEpitheliumHumansLiverPharmacologyPrinting, Three-DimensionalTissue Engineering3D printingAlternatives to animal testingExcised human tissueOrgan modelPharmacological testing in vitroTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID30395949
PMCPMC7129286
OpenAlexW2898645438

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.