Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31069297›Full record

ReviewAPL bioengineering2018

Review: Multimodal bioactive material approaches for wound healing.

Serena Mandla, Locke Davenport Huyer, Milica Radisic

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in APL bioengineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Immunostimulatory Effect of MIL-101(Al)-NHInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Ferulic Acid: A Review of Mechanisms of Action, Absorption, Toxicology, Application on Wound Healing.Anti-inflammatory & anti-allergy agents in medicinal chemistry · 2024
    Review
  9. Rational Design of Multifunctional Hydrogels for Wound Repair.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Antibacterial biomaterials for skin wound dressing.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Serena MandlaInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G9, Canada.
Locke Davenport Huyer
Milica Radisic
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound healing is a highly complex process of tissue repair that relies on the synergistic effect of a number of different cells, cytokines, enzymes, and growth factors. A deregulation in this process can lead to the formation of a non-healing chronic ulcer. Current treatment options, such as collagen wound dressings, are unable to meet the demand set by the wound environment. Therefore, a multifaceted bioactive dressing is needed to elicit a targeted affect. Wound healing strategies seek to develop a targeted effect through the delivery of a bioactive molecule to the wound by a hydrogel or a polymeric scaffold. This review examines current biomaterial and small molecule-based approaches that seek to develop a bioactive material for targeted wound therapy and accepted wound healing models for testing material efficacy.

Identifiers

PMID31069297
PMCPMC6481710
OpenAlexW2810154468

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.