Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31687388›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2019

Current Trends in the Evaluation of Osteochondral Lesion Treatments: Histology, Histomorphometry, and Biomechanics in Preclinical Models.

M Maglio, S Brogini, S Pagani, G Giavaresi, M Tschon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Establishment of anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M MaglioIRCCS-Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Laboratory of Preclinical and Surgical Studies, via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3778-4406
S BroginiIRCCS-Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Laboratory of Preclinical and Surgical Studies, via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1229-9367
S PaganiIRCCS-Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Laboratory of Preclinical and Surgical Studies, via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
G GiavaresiIRCCS-Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Laboratory of Preclinical and Surgical Studies, via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7843-5969
M TschonIRCCS-Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Laboratory of Preclinical and Surgical Studies, via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteochondral lesions (OCs) are typically of traumatic origins but are also caused by degenerative conditions, in primis osteoarthritis (OA). On the other side, OC lesions themselves, getting worse over time, can lead to OA, indicating that chondral and OC defects represent a risk factor for the onset of the pathology. Many animal models have been set up for years for the study of OC regeneration, being successfully employed to test different treatment strategies, from biomaterials and cells to physical and biological adjuvant therapies. These studies rely on a plethora of post-explant investigations ranging from histological and histomorphometric analyses to biomechanical ones. The present review aims to analyze the methods employed for the evaluation of OC treatments in each animal model by screening literature data within the last 10 years. According to the selected research criteria performed in two databases, 60 works were included. Data revealed that lapine (50% of studies) and ovine (23% of studies) models are predominant, and knee joints are the most used anatomical locations for creating OC defects. Analyses are mostly conducted on paraffin-embedded samples in order to perform histological/histomorphometric analyses by applying semiquantitative scoring systems and on fresh samples in order to perform biomechanical investigations by indentation tests on articular cartilage. Instead, a great heterogeneity is pointed out in terms of OC defect dimensions and animal's age. The choice of experimental times is generally adequate for the animal models adopted, although few studies adopt very long experimental times. Improvements in data reporting and in standardization of protocols would be desirable for a better comparison of results and for ethical reasons related to appropriate and successful animal experimentation.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCartilage, ArticularHumansKnee InjuriesKnee JointModels, AnimalOsteoarthritisBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID31687388
PMCPMC6803751
OpenAlexW2980147473

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.