Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31466409›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2019

Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Margherita Tumedei, Paolo Savadori, Massimo Del Fabbro

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Role of FGF-18 in Bone Regeneration.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Frontiers in non-union research.EFORT open reviews · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Margherita TumedeiUniversity "Gabriele D'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Paolo SavadoriIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy.
Massimo Del FabbroIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161 Milan, Italy. massimo.delfabbro@unimi.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of synthetic block materials for bone augmentation in preclinical in vivo studies. An electronic search was performed on Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE. Articles selected underwent risk-of-bias assessment. The outcomes were: new bone formation and residual graft with histomorphometry, radiographic bone density, soft tissue parameters, complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare new bone formation in test (synthetic blocks) vs. control group (autogenous blocks or spontaneous healing). The search yielded 214 articles. After screening, 39 studies were included, all performed on animal models: rabbits (

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationAnimalsBone SubstitutesDogsGoatsRabbitsRatsRegenerative MedicineSheepSwineSwine, MiniatureBone Substitutesanimal modelsbiomaterialsblock graftbone graftbone regenerationbone substituteshistological analysissynthetic biomaterialssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31466409
PMCPMC6747264

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.