ReviewPolymers2021
In Vitro Evaluation of Biomaterials for Vocal Fold Injection: A Systematic Review.
Review in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stem Cell-Based Regeneration of Atrophied Vocal Folds after Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Injury.International journal of stem cells · 2026Article
- Tunicate-Inspired Carboxymethyl Cellulose Hydrogel Filler for Treating Age-Associated Vocal Fold Atrophy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Multifunctional Double-Network Hydrogel with Porous, Adhesive, and Immunomodulatory Properties for Minimally Invasive Soft Tissue Repair.Small science · 2025Article
- Regenerative Strategies for Vocal Fold Repair Using Injectable Materials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A hybrid vocal fold phonatory platform for pediatric phonation modeling.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Vocal fold injection is a preferred treatment in glottic insufficiency because it is relatively quick and cost-saving. However, researchers have yet to discover the ideal biomaterial with properties suitable for human vocal fold application. The current systematic review employing PRISMA guidelines summarizes and discusses the available evidence related to outcome measures used to characterize novel biomaterials in the development phase. The literature search of related articles published within January 2010 to March 2021 was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Google Scholar and PubMed databases. The search identified 6240 potentially relevant records, which were screened and appraised to include 15 relevant articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The current study highlights that the characterization methods were inconsistent throughout the different studies. While rheologic outcome measures (viscosity, elasticity and shear) were most widely utilized, there appear to be no target or reference values. Outcome measures such as cellular response and biodegradation should be prioritized as they could mitigate the clinical drawbacks of currently available biomaterials. The review suggests future studies to prioritize characterization of the viscoelasticity (to improve voice outcomes), inflammatory response (to reduce side effects) and biodegradation (to improve longevity) profiles of newly developed biomaterials.
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.