Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32207102›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2020

History and Trends of 3D Bioprinting.

Patrick Thayer, Hector Martinez, Erik Gatenholm

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Extrusion bioprinting: meeting the promise of human tissue biofabrication?Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Biomaterials for extrusion-based bioprinting and biomedical applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. User Experience and Sustainability of 3D Printing in Dentistry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Complex 3D bioprinting methods.APL bioengineering · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Patrick ThayerCELLINK LLC, Cambridge, MA, USA. pt@cellink.com.
Hector MartinezCELLINK LLC, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Erik GatenholmCELLINK LLC, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of bioprinting is rapidly evolving as researchers innovate and drive the field forward. This chapter provides a brief overview of the history of bioprinting from the first described printer system in the early 2000s to present-day relatively inexpensive commercially available units and considers the current state of the field and emerging trends, including selected applications and techniques.

Indexed as

BioprintingPrinting, Three-DimensionalAnimalsArtificial OrgansBiocompatible MaterialsCell Culture TechniquesEuropeHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansJapanMicrovesselsPoloxamerRoboticsTime FactorsTissue EngineeringBiocompatible MaterialsPoloxamer3D bioprinting4D bioprintingBioinksBiomaterialsCell printingTissue engineering

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.