Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30968018›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2019

Cellulose Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering.

Ryan J Hickey, Andrew E Pelling

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

144 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Scaling Cultured Meat: Challenges and Solutions for Affordable Mass Production.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

84 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

2 authors.

Ryan J HickeyDepartment of Physics, STEM Complex, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Andrew E PellingDepartment of Physics, STEM Complex, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we highlight the importance of nanostructure of cellulose-based biomaterials to allow cellular adhesion, the contribution of nanostructure to macroscale mechanical properties, and several key applications of these materials for fundamental scientific research and biomedical engineering. Different features on the nanoscale can have macroscale impacts on tissue function. Cellulose is a diverse material with tunable properties and is a promising platform for biomaterial development and tissue engineering. Cellulose-based biomaterials offer some important advantages over conventional synthetic materials. Here we provide an up-to-date summary of the status of the field of cellulose-based biomaterials in the context of bottom-up approaches for tissue engineering. We anticipate that cellulose-based material research will continue to expand because of the diversity and versatility of biochemical and biophysical characteristics highlighted in this review.

Indexed as

biocompatibilitybiomaterialscellulosemechanicsnanostructure

Identifiers

PMID30968018
PMCPMC6438900

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.