Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31439372›Full record

ReviewTrends in biotechnology2020

Using Remote Fields for Complex Tissue Engineering.

James P K Armstrong, Molly M Stevens

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

James P K ArmstrongDepartment of Materials, Department of Bioengineering, and Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. Electronic address: james.armstrong@imperial.ac.uk.
Molly M StevensDepartment of Materials, Department of Bioengineering, and Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. Electronic address: m.stevens@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

European Research Council 616417Medical Research Council MR/R015651/1Medical Research Council MR/S00551X/1Wellcome Trust 098411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Great strides have been taken towards the in vitro engineering of clinically relevant tissue constructs using the classic triad of cells, materials, and biochemical factors. In this perspective, we highlight ways in which these elements can be manipulated or stimulated using a fourth component: the application of remote fields. This arena has gained great momentum over the last few years, with a recent surge of interest in using magnetic, optical, and acoustic fields to guide the organization of cells, materials, and biochemical factors. We summarize recent developments and trends in this arena and then lay out a series of challenges that we believe, if met, could enable the widespread adoption of remote fields in mainstream tissue engineering.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAnimalsCartilageHumansMagnetic FieldsOptical TweezersOptogeneticsSkin TransplantationTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsUltrasonicsacousticmagneticopticalremote fieldstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID31439372
PMCPMC7023978

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.