ArticleSmall methods2018
Micro- and Macrobioprinting: Current Trends in Tissue Modeling and Organ Fabrication.
Article in Small methods, 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.
- The role and mechanism of 3D-printed hydrogel-CGF/PLGA composite polymer in promoting skin burn healing.Journal of molecular histology · 2026Article
- Preclinical Testing of 3D Printed, Cell Loaded Hydrogel Based Corneal Substitutes on Rabbit Model.Macromolecular bioscience · 2025Article
- Sustained released of bioactive mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles from 3D-printed gelatin methacrylate hydrogels.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2022Article
- Metal Nanoparticles in Laser Bioprinting.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Addressing present pitfalls in 3D printing for tissue engineering to enhance future potential.APL bioengineering · 2020Article
- Fully Three-Dimensional Bioprinted Skin Equivalent Constructs with Validated Morphology and Barrier Function.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The recapitulation of human anatomy and physiology is critical for organ regeneration. Due to this fundamental requirement, bioprinting holds great promise in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine due to the possibility of fabricating complex scaffolds that host cells and biochemical cues in a physiologically relevant fashion. The ever-growing research in this field has been proceeding along two different, yet complementary, routes: on the one hand, the development of bioprinting to fabricate large tissue surrogates for transplantation purposes in vivo (macrobioprinting), and on the other the spread of bioprinting-based miniaturized systems to model the tissue microenvironment in vitro (microbioprinting). The latest advances in both macro- and microbioprinting are reviewed, emphasizing their impact on specific areas of tissue engineering. Additionally, a critical comparison of macro- versus microbioprinting is presented together with advantages and limitations of each approach. Ultimately, findings obtained both at the macro-and microscale are expected to provide a deeper insight in tissue biology and offer clinically relevant solutions for organ regeneration.
Indexed as
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.