Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32647506›Full record

ReviewEngineering in life sciences2020

Tissue engineering in female pelvic floor reconstruction.

Xiaotong Wu, YuanYuan Jia, Xiuli Sun, Jianliu Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Engineering in life sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Tissue Engineering in Gynecology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Tissue-engineered repair material for pelvic floor dysfunction.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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 2 countries.

Xiaotong WuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Peking University People's Hospital Beijing P. R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7567-8674
YuanYuan JiaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Peking University People's Hospital Beijing P. R. China.
Xiuli SunDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Peking University People's Hospital Beijing P. R. China.
Jianliu WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Peking University People's Hospital Beijing P. R. China.
Peking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and frequently occurring disease in middle-aged and elderly women. Mesh implantation is an ideal surgical treatment. The polypropylene mesh commonly used in clinical practice has good mechanical properties, but there are long-term complications. The application of tissue engineering technology in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse disease can not only meet the mechanical requirements of pelvic floor support, but also be more biocompatible than traditional polypropylene mesh, and can promote tissue repair to a certain extent. In this paper, the progress of tissue engineering was summarized to understand the application of tissue engineering in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse disease and will help in research.

Indexed as

biological scaffold materialspelvic floor dysfunction diseaseseed cellsstem cellstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID32647506
PMCPMC7336160
OpenAlexW3016603485

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.