Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33871061›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2022

A systematic review and meta-analyses on animal models used in bone adhesive research.

Machteld Van Erk, Judith Van Luijk, Fang Yang, Sander C G Leeuwenburgh, María J Sánchez-Fernández, Erik Hermans, Rosa P Félix Lanao, Harry Van Goor

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A systematic review and meta-analyses on animal models used in bone adhesive research.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Degradable polymer bone adhesives.Fundamental research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Frontiers in physiology · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Machteld Van ErkDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4339-0251
Judith Van LuijkDepartment for Health Evidence, SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5253-9145
Fang YangDepartment of Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4022-7643
Sander C G LeeuwenburghDepartment of Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1471-6133
María J Sánchez-FernándezDepartment of Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Erik HermansDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rosa P Félix LanaoDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Harry Van GoorDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0323-4876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, steel implants are used for osteosynthesis of (comminuted) fractures and intra-articular bone defects. These osteosyntheses can sometimes be complicated procedures and can have several drawbacks including stress shielding of the bone. A bone glue might be a safe and effective alternative to current materials. Despite numerous animal studies on bone adhesives, no such material is clinically applied yet. We have conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence in experimental animal models used in research on bone adhesive materials for trauma and orthopedic surgery. Additionally, we analysed the efficacy of the different bone adhesives for different experimental designs. A heterogeneity in experimental parameters including animal species, defect types, and control measurements resulted in a wide variety in experimental models. In addition, no standard outcome measurements could be identified. Meta-analysis on bone regeneration between adhesive treatment and nonadhesive treatment showed a high heterogeneity and no statistically significant overall effect (M: -0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.63-0.21, p = 0.13). Besides, currently there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions based on the effectiveness of the individual types of adhesives or experimental models. A positive statistically significant effect was found for the adhesive treatment in comparison with conventional osteosynthesis materials (M: 2.49, 95% CI: 1.20-3.79, p = 0.0002). To enhance progression in bone adhesive research and provide valuable evidence for clinical application, more standard experimental parameters and a higher reporting quality in animal studies are needed. Statement of Clinical Significance: Current materials restoring anatomical alignments of bones have several drawbacks. A (biodegradable) adhesive for fixating bone defects can be a treatment breakthrough. Although numerous bone adhesives have been researched, most seemed to fail at the preclinical stage. An overview in this field is missing. This systematic review highlights the relevant parameters for design of experimental bone adhesive studies. It demonstrates evidence regarding benefit of bone adhesives but also that the quality of reporting and the risk of bias in studies need to be improved. The results will aid in designing better quality animal studies for bone adhesive research with higher translational value.

Indexed as

AdhesivesOrthopedic ProceduresAnimalsBone and BonesBone CementsModels, AnimalAdhesivesBone Cementsanimal modelBone adhesivebone defectmeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33871061
PMCPMC9290478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.