Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30977574›Full record

ReviewBiotechnology journal2019

Engineered Skin Tissue Equivalents for Product Evaluation and Therapeutic Applications.

Sana Suhail, Naseem Sardashti, Devina Jaiswal, Swetha Rudraiah, Manoj Misra, Sangamesh G Kumbar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotechnology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A novel integratedRegenerative biomaterials · 2026
    Article
  5. Skin-on-chip: Quo vadis?APL bioengineering · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Poly-γ-Glutamic Acid from a NovelInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  13. 3D human epithelial models: a promising platform for studyingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Sana SuhailDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.
Naseem SardashtiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.
Devina JaiswalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.
Swetha RudraiahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.
Manoj MisraUnilever R&D, 40 Merritt Blvd, Trumbull, CT, 06611, USA.
Sangamesh G KumbarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.

Funding

Biodegradable Matrices for Bone HealingR01EB020640 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI KUMBAR, SANGAMESH GURAPPA, YU, XIAOJUN · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
Polysaccharide putty formulations for tissue regenerationR01EB034202 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI Sangamesh Gurappa Kumbar · 2023 to 2026
$1.5M
Supplement to Support the Acquisition of a High-Precision 3D PrinterR01NS134604 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER · PI Sangamesh Gurappa Kumbar · 2024 to 2026
$1.3M
Engineered Matrices with Electrical and Chemical Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve RepairR56NS122753 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI KUMBAR, SANGAMESH GURAPPA · 2022 to 2022
$410k
Connecticut Regenerative Medicine Research Fund 15-RMBUCHC-08NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020640NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB020640NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB034202NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS134604NINDS NIH HHS R56 NS122753the Connecticut Regenerative Medicine Research Fund 15-RMBUCHC-08the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health R01EB020640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current status of skin tissue equivalents that have emerged as relevant tools in commercial and therapeutic product development applications is reviewed. Due to the rise of animal welfare concerns, numerous companies have designed skin model alternatives to assess the efficacy of pharmaceutical, skincare, and cosmetic products in an in vitro setting, decreasing the dependency on such methods. Skin models have also made an impact in determining the root causes of skin diseases. When designing a skin model, there are various chemical and physical considerations that need to be considered to produce a biomimetic design. This includes designing a structure that mimics the structural characteristics and mechanical strength needed for tribological property measurement and toxicological testing. Recently, various commercial products have made significant progress towards achieving a native skin alternative. Further research involve the development of a functional bilayered model that mimics the constituent properties of the native epidermis and dermis. In this article, the skin models are divided into three categories: in vitro epidermal skin equivalents, in vitro full-thickness skin equivalents, and clinical skin equivalents. A description of skin model characteristics, testing methods, applications, and potential improvements is presented.

Indexed as

Skin, ArtificialTissue EngineeringHumansModels, BiologicalSkinSkin DiseasesSkin Physiological Phenomenacommercialcosmeticpharmaceuticalproduct testingskintribology

Identifiers

PMID30977574
PMCPMC6615970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.