ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Updates on Allograft Selection for Reconstruction of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Review
- Acellular Extracellular Matrix Scaffolds in Regenerative Medicine: Advances in Decellularization and Clinical Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Osteopontin attenuates the foreign-body response to silicone implants.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Efficacy of Impregnated Human Acellular Dermal Substitutes in Burn Wound Models.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advances in preparation of acellular human dermis for tissue banking and transplantation.Cell and tissue banking · 2024Article
- Does Acellular Dermal Matrix Really Reduce the Risk of Recurrent Ptosis after Mastopexy?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimAcellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have become popular in implant-based breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to compare three commonly used ADM products in vivo in an animal model. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe nucleic acid content (residual double-stranded DNA) and the levels of the remaining growth factors after decellularization were measured for each ADM. Cytocompatibility with ADMs was documented using NIH 3T3 mouse fibroblast cells. In vivo, the implanted ADMs were histologically evaluated at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months (n=5) using male 8-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats.
resultsFibroblasts grew in the SureDerm HD and DermACELL with no cytotoxicity. In a rat model, SureDerm HD and DermACELL incorporated more readily into the surrounding host tissue, as measured by rapid cell influx and collagen deposition, and showed more delayed tissue remodeling with decreased matrix metalloproteinases levels compared to AlloDerm.
conclusionSureDerm HD and DermACELL can be used as biological materials for breast reconstruction.
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.