ReviewInternational journal of bioprinting2020
Software for Bioprinting.
Review in International journal of bioprinting, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of 3D printed medical implant design.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- Engineering a GelMA-dECM-based 3D bioprinted liver fibrosis model: methotrexate-induced functional and molecular validation.RSC advances · 2025Article
- 3D bioprinting in tissue engineering: current state-of-the-art and challenges towards system standardization and clinical translation.Biofabrication · 2025Review
- Bioprinting and Intellectual Property: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Road Ahead.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Computational methods for biofabrication in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine - a literature review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Development and implementation of a significantly low-cost 3D bioprinter using recycled scrap material.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Fragmenting Bulk Hydrogels and Processing into Granular Hydrogels for Biomedical Applications.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2022Article
- The 3D Bioprinted Scaffolds for Wound Healing.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Development ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Establishing a point-of-care additive manufacturing workflow for clinical use.Journal of materials research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The bioprinting of heterogeneous organs is a crucial issue. To reach the complexity of such organs, there is a need for highly specialized software that will meet all requirements such as accuracy, complexity, and others. The primary objective of this review is to consider various software tools that are used in bioprinting and to reveal their capabilities. The sub-objective was to consider different approaches for the model creation using these software tools. Related articles on this topic were analyzed. Software tools are classified based on control tools, general computer-aided design (CAD) tools, tools to convert medical data to CAD formats, and a few highly specialized research-project tools. Different geometry representations are considered, and their advantages and disadvantages are considered applicable to heterogeneous volume modeling and bioprinting. The primary factor for the analysis is suitability of the software for heterogeneous volume modeling and bioprinting or multimaterial three-dimensional printing due to the commonality of these technologies. A shortage of specialized suitable software tools is revealed. There is a need to develop a new application area such as computer science for bioprinting which can contribute significantly in future research work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.