Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32449317›Full record

ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2020

Biomaterials against Bone Infection.

María Vallet-Regí, Daniel Lozano, Blanca González, Isabel Izquierdo-Barba

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles in Biomedicine: Advances and Prospects.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Biocompatible Mesoporous Materials for Bone Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Release Profile and Antibacterial Activity ofBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

10 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

María Vallet-RegíDepartamento de Química en Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, Madrid, 28040, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6104-4889
Daniel LozanoDepartamento de Química en Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, Madrid, 28040, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5902-9201
Blanca GonzálezDepartamento de Química en Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Isabel Izquierdo-BarbaDepartamento de Química en Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, Madrid, 28040, Spain.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

European Research Council 694160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic bone infection is considered as one of the most problematic biofilm-related infections. Its recurrent and resistant nature, high morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and costly medical care expenses have driven the efforts of the scientific community to develop new therapies to improve the standards used today. There is great debate on the management of this kind of infection in order to establish consistent and agreed guidelines in national health systems. The scientific research is oriented toward the design of anti-infective biomaterials both for prevention and cure. The properties of these materials must be adapted to achieve better anti-infective performance and good compatibility, which allow a good integration of the implant with the surrounding tissue. The objective of this review is to study in-depth the antibacterial biomaterials and the strategies underlying them. In this sense, this manuscript focuses on antimicrobial coatings, including the new technological advances on surface modification; scaffolding design including multifunctional scaffolds with both antimicrobial and bone regeneration properties; and nanocarriers based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles with advanced properties (targeting and stimuli-response capabilities).

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsBiofilmsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBone RegenerationSilicon DioxideAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiocompatible MaterialsSilicon Dioxidebone infectionsmesoporous silica nanoparticlesnanocarriersscaffolds

Identifiers

PMID32449317
PMCPMC7116285
OpenAlexW3028450847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.