ReviewRegenerative biomaterials2021
Biodegradable metals for bone fracture repair in animal models: a systematic review.
Review in Regenerative biomaterials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Black phosphorous-based biomaterials for bone defect regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Pooled it
- Synergistic integration of biomaterials in orthopedic implantation for infection preventing and tissue engineering.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Review
- Degradable poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid and non-degradable polymer implants result in similar fracture healing at early timepoints.Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2025Article
- Article
- Beyond hype: unveiling the Real challenges in clinical translation of 3D printed bone scaffolds and the fresh prospects of bioprinted organoids.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Nano-ZnO-modified hydroxyapatite whiskers with enhanced osteoinductivity for bone defect repair.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Article
- Fe-Zn alloy, a new biodegradable material capable of reducing ROS and inhibiting oxidative stress.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Article
- Fucoidan- and Ciprofloxacin-Doped Plasma-Activated Polymer Coatings on Biodegradable Zinc: Hemocompatibility and Drug Release.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Development of a Bioreactor-Coupled Flow-Cell Setup for 3D In Situ Nanotomography of Mg Alloy Biodegradation.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023Article
- Development, Processing and Aging of Novel Zn-Ag-Cu Based Biodegradable Alloys.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An In Vivo Rat Study of Bioresorbable Mg-2Zn-2Ga Alloy Implants.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Quantitatively relating magnetic resonanceRegenerative biomaterials · 2023Article
- Plain metallic biomaterials: opportunities and challenges.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Review
- Advancing medical device regulatory reforms for innovation, translation and industry development in China.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2022Article
- Comparative Osteogenesis and Degradation Behavior of Magnesium Implant in Epiphysis and Diaphysis of the Long Bone in the Rat Model.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Advances of Stimulus-Responsive Hydrogels for Bone Defects Repair in Tissue Engineering.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Interaction of thin polyethyleneimine layer with the iron surface and its effect on the electrochemical behavior.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
- Recent advances in regenerative biomaterials.Regenerative biomaterials · 2022Review
- Quality of reporting and adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 for preclinical degradable metal research in animal models of bone defect and fracture: a systematic review.Regenerative biomaterials · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodegradable metals hold promises for bone fracture repair. Their clinical translation requires pre-clinical evaluations including animal studies, which demonstrate the safety and performance of such materials prior to clinical trials. This evidence-based study investigates and analyzes the performance of bone fractures repair as well as degradation properties of biodegradable metals in animal models. Data were carefully collected after identification of population, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design, as well as inclusion criteria combining biodegradable metals and animal study. Twelve publications on pure Mg, Mg alloys and Zn alloys were finally included and reviewed after extraction from a collected database of 2122 publications. Compared to controls of traditional non-degradable metals or resorbable polymers, biodegradable metals showed mixed or contradictory outcomes of fracture repair and degradation in animal models. Although quantitative meta-analysis cannot be conducted because of the data heterogeneity, this systematic review revealed that the quality of evidence for biodegradable metals to repair bone fractures in animal models is 'very low'. Recommendations to standardize the animal studies of biodegradable metals were proposed. Evidence-based biomaterials research could help to both identify reliable scientific evidence and ensure future clinical translation of biodegradable metals for bone fracture repair.
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.