Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32280836›Full record

ReviewBioactive materials2020

Bioactive polymeric materials and electrical stimulation strategies for musculoskeletal tissue repair and regeneration.

Bryan Ferrigno, Rosalie Bordett, Nithyadevi Duraisamy, Joshua Moskow, Michael R Arul, Swetha Rudraiah, Syam P Nukavarapu, Anthony T Vella, Sangamesh G Kumbar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Bioactive materials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 181 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Alveolar Bone Regeneration: Smart Biomaterials and Physical Stimulation.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Low-level direct currents eradicate multi-drug-resistantChemical engineering journal (Lausanne, Switzerland : 1996) · 2025
    Article

19 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bryan FerrignoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Rosalie BordettDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Nithyadevi DuraisamyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Joshua MoskowDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Michael R ArulDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Swetha RudraiahDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Syam P NukavarapuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Anthony T VellaDepartment of Department of Immunology, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
Sangamesh G KumbarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
UConn Health · USUniversity of Connecticut · USUniversity of Saint Joseph · US

Funding

Biodegradable Matrices for Bone HealingR01EB020640 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCH OF MED/DNT · PI KUMBAR, SANGAMESH GURAPPA, YU, XIAOJUN · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical stimulation (ES) is predominantly used as a physical therapy modality to promote tissue healing and functional recovery. Research efforts in both laboratory and clinical settings have shown the beneficial effects of this technique for the repair and regeneration of damaged tissues, which include muscle, bone, skin, nerve, tendons, and ligaments. The collective findings of these studies suggest ES enhances cell proliferation, extracellular matrix (ECM) production, secretion of several cytokines, and vasculature development leading to better tissue regeneration in multiple tissues. However, there is still a gap in the clinical relevance for ES to better repair tissue interfaces, as ES applied clinically is ineffective on deeper tissue. The use of a conducting material can transmit the stimulation applied from skin electrodes to the desired tissue and lead to an increased function on the repair of that tissue. Ionically conductive (IC) polymeric scaffolds in conjunction with ES may provide solutions to utilize this approach effectively. Injectable IC formulations and their scaffolds may provide solutions for applying ES into difficult to reach tissue types to enable tissue repair and regeneration. A better understanding of ES-mediated cell differentiation and associated molecular mechanisms including the immune response will allow standardization of procedures applicable for the next generation of regenerative medicine. ES, along with the use of IC scaffolds is more than sufficient for use as a treatment option for single tissue healing and may fulfill a role in interfacing multiple tissue types during the repair process.

Indexed as

Bone and wound healingConductive polymersElectrical stimulationIonic conductivityLigamentMuscleNerveTendonTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID32280836
PMCPMC7139146
OpenAlexW3015835930

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.