Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31650097›Full record

ReviewAPL bioengineering2019

The rationale and emergence of electroconductive biomaterial scaffolds in cardiac tissue engineering.

Matteo Solazzo, Fergal J O'Brien, Valeria Nicolosi, Michael G Monaghan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in APL bioengineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Peptide Electrostatic Modulation Directs Human Neural Cell Fate.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. RSC advances · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human heart possesses minimal regenerative potential, which can often lead to chronic heart failure following myocardial infarction. Despite the successes of assistive support devices and pharmacological therapies, only a whole heart transplantation can sufficiently address heart failure. Engineered scaffolds, implantable patches, and injectable hydrogels are among the most promising solutions to restore cardiac function and coax regeneration; however, current biomaterials have yet to achieve ideal tissue regeneration and adequate integration due a mismatch of material physicochemical properties. Conductive fillers such as graphene, carbon nanotubes, metallic nanoparticles, and MXenes and conjugated polymers such as polyaniline, polypyrrole, and poly(3,4-ethylendioxythiophene) can possibly achieve optimal electrical conductivities for cardiac applications with appropriate suitability for tissue engineering approaches. Many studies have focused on the use of these materials in multiple fields, with promising effects on the regeneration of electrically active biological tissues such as orthopedic, neural, and cardiac tissue. In this review, we critically discuss the role of heart electrophysiology and the rationale toward the use of electroconductive biomaterials for cardiac tissue engineering. We present the emerging applications of these smart materials to create supportive platforms and discuss the crucial role that electrical stimulation has been shown to exert in maturation of cardiac progenitor cells.

Identifiers

PMID31650097
PMCPMC6795503

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.