Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32679750›Full record

ReviewPolymers2020

Polymer-Based Scaffolds for Soft-Tissue Engineering.

Victor Perez-Puyana, Mercedes Jiménez-Rosado, Alberto Romero, Antonio Guerrero

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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 1 country.

Victor Perez-PuyanaDepartamento de Ingeniería Química, Facultad de Química, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Sevilla, Spain.
Mercedes Jiménez-RosadoDepartamento de Ingeniería Química, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla, 41011 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5164-838X
Alberto RomeroDepartamento de Ingeniería Química, Facultad de Química, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6323-9938
Antonio GuerreroDepartamento de Ingeniería Química, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla, 41011 Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6050-8699
Universidad de Sevilla · ES

Funding

Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España RTI2018-097100-B-C21Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional FPU2017/01718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomaterials have been used since ancient times. However, it was not until the late 1960s when their development prospered, increasing the research on them. In recent years, the study of biomaterials has focused mainly on tissue regeneration, requiring a biomaterial that can support cells during their growth and fulfill the function of the replaced tissue until its regeneration. These materials, called scaffolds, have been developed with a wide variety of materials and processes, with the polymer ones being the most advanced. For this reason, the need arises for a review that compiles the techniques most used in the development of polymer-based scaffolds. This review has focused on three of the most used techniques: freeze-drying, electrospinning and 3D printing, focusing on current and future trends. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of each of them have been compared.

Indexed as

3D printingbioactive scaffoldselectrospinningfreeze-dryingtissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID32679750
PMCPMC7408565
OpenAlexW3042328641

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.