Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130238›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies.

Mihail Climov, Adriana C Panayi, Gregory Borah, Dennis P Orgill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Mihail ClimovDivision of Plastic Surgery, Ruby Memorial Hospital, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9150-8608
Adriana C PanayiTissue Engineering and Wound Healing Laboratory, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Gregory BorahDivision of Plastic Surgery, Ruby Memorial Hospital, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, United States of America.
Dennis P OrgillTissue Engineering and Wound Healing Laboratory, Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSkin Replacement Technologies (SRTs) emerged as skin alternatives for burns, large excisions or trauma. The original publications represent the available knowledge on a subject and can be modeled as a logistic S-curve which depicts the technology's evolution life-cycle. The Technology Innovation Maturation Evaluation (TIME) model was previously introduced to study the life-cycles of biotechnologies.

methodsPubMed database was searched 1900-2015 to review relevant publications. All skin replacement or regeneration products on the US market were included. The TIME model was applied to assess evolutionary patterns for each technology. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Three SRT clusters were identified: processed biologics technologies (PBT), extracellular matrix technologies (EMT), and cell-based technologies (CBT). Publications on EMTs and CBTs start decades after PBTs, however, are greater in number and follow an ascending trend. PBTs reached a plateau, suggesting near-senescence. The CBT curve was non-logarithmic and the TIME model could not be applied. The technology initiation point (Ti) for PBTs was 1939 and the establishment point (Te) 1992. For EMT, Ti was 1966 and Te 2010. Sixty-one products were identified (49 EMTs, 7 CBTs, 5 PBTs). PBTs appeared 11 years after Te and EMTs four years prior Te. Thirty-seven products in the EMT category, and one in the PBT category, were developed before Te. The most common FDA regulatory mechanism for SRT was found to be 510(k) followed by HCT/P 361.

conclusionInnovation is an indicator of the evolution of technology. The number of publications can be used as a metric of this evolution and the fact that the SRT field falls under such pattern demonstrates that SRT is an innovation-based industry. EMT is the most efficient cluster. Few products from SRT registered a commercial success, and from those that did, those technologies were generally found to be part of the most productive cluster, 1st in concept, conceptually simple, easily regulated and produced, cost and clinically efficient, reimbursable, able to solve a specific problem efficiently, had a platform technology design that allowed for further innovation and adaptation for other uses and, as found by application of the TIME model, appear prior to technology establishment.

Indexed as

Skin TransplantationTechnologyHumansInventionsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32130238
PMCPMC7055911

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.