Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31709311›Full record

ArticleBioactive materials2019

Recent advances in biomaterials for 3D scaffolds: A review.

Maria P Nikolova, Murthy S Chavali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioactive materials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 358 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
358citing 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

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

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

298 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Maria P NikolovaDepartment of Material Science and Technology, University of Ruse "A. Kanchev", 8 Studentska Str., 7000, Ruse, Bulgaria.
Murthy S ChavaliShree Velagapudi Ramakrishna Memorial College (PG Studies, Autonomous), Nagaram, 522268, Guntur District, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering the advantages and disadvantages of biomaterials used for the production of 3D scaffolds for tissue engineering, new strategies for designing advanced functional biomimetic structures have been reviewed. We offer a comprehensive summary of recent trends in development of single- (metal, ceramics and polymers), composite-type and cell-laden scaffolds that in addition to mechanical support, promote simultaneous tissue growth, and deliver different molecules (growth factors, cytokines, bioactive ions, genes, drugs, antibiotics, etc.) or cells with therapeutic or facilitating regeneration effect. The paper briefly focuses on divers 3D bioprinting constructs and the challenges they face. Based on their application in hard and soft tissue engineering,

Indexed as

Bioactive scaffoldsBioceramicsBioprintingBone tissue engineeringPolymeric biomaterials

Identifiers

PMID31709311
PMCPMC6829098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.