ReviewStem cells international2021
FGF2 and EGF for the Regeneration of Tympanic Membrane: A Systematic Review.
Review in Stem cells international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Concentrated Growth Factors in Treating Tympanic Membrane Perforation in Guinea Pigs.The journal of international advanced otology · 2025Article
- Correlation between EGF and VEGF expression levels and the efficacy of radiosurgery in recurrent glioma.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Bioactive peptides and proteins for tissue repair: microenvironment modulation, rational delivery, and clinical potential.Military Medical Research · 2024Review
- Article
- Controlled Release of Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Conditioned Media from a Microsphere/Gel-Based Drug Delivery System for Wound Healing of Tympanic Membrane Perforations.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Effect of Emergency Dermabrasion Combined with Biological Dressing A on Wound Microcirculation and Preventing Sepsis in Deep Degree-II Burns.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF2) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) for regeneration of the tympanic membrane (TM).
methodsThe PubMed database was searched for relevant studies. Experimental and clinical studies reporting acute and chronic TM perforations in relation to two healing outcomes (success rate and closure time) and complications were selected.
resultsA total of 47 studies were included. Five experimental studies showed closure rates of 55%-100% with FGF2 compared with 10%-62.5% in controls for acute perforations. Five experimental studies showed closure rates of 30.3%-100% with EGF and 3.6%-41% in controls for chronic perforations. Two experimental studies showed closure rates of 31.6% or 85.7% with FGF2 and 15.8% or 100% with EGF. Nine clinical studies of acute large perforations showed closure rates of 91.4%-100% with FGF2 or EGF. Two clinical studies showed similar closure rates between groups treated with FGF2 and EGF. Seven clinical studies showed closure rates of 88.9%-100% within 3 months and 58%-66% within 12 months using FGF2 in repair of chronic perforations, but only one study showed a significantly higher closure rate in the saline group compared with the FGF2 group (71.4% vs. 57.5%, respectively,
conclusionsFGF2 and EGF showed good effects and reliable safety for the regeneration of TM. In addition, EGF was better for the regeneration of acute perforations, while FGF2 combined with biological scaffolds was superior to EGF for chronic perforations, but was associated with high rates of reperforation over time. Further studies are required to determine whether EGF or FGF2 is better for TM regeneration.
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.