ReviewJournal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials2022
Integration of clinical perspective into biomimetic bioreactor design for orthopedics.
Review in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced Biomaterial-Based In Vitro Osteoarthritis Models: Integrating Sex as a Biological Variable in Hormonal, Subchondral Bone, and Mechanobiological Pathways.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Integration of clinical perspective into biomimetic bioreactor design for orthopedics.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2022Review
- Perfused Platforms to Mimic Bone Microenvironment at the Macro/Milli/Microscale: Pros and Cons.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The challenges to accommodate multiple tissue formation metrics in conventional bioreactors have resulted in an increased interest to explore novel bioreactor designs. Bioreactors allow researchers to isolate variables in controlled environments to quantify cell response. While current bioreactor designs can effectively provide either mechanical, electrical, or chemical stimuli to the controlled environment, these systems lack the ability to combine all these stimuli simultaneously to better recapitulate the physiological environment. Introducing a dynamic and systematic combination of biomimetic stimuli bioreactor systems could tremendously enhance its clinical relevance in research. Thus, cues from different tissue responses should be studied collectively and included in the design of a biomimetic bioreactor platform. This review begins by providing a summary on the progression of bioreactors from simple to complex designs, focusing on the major advances in bioreactor technology and the approaches employed to better simulate in vivo conditions. The current state of bioreactors in terms of their clinical relevance is also analyzed. Finally, this review provides a comprehensive overview of individual biophysical stimuli and their role in establishing a biomimetic microenvironment for tissue engineering. To date, the most advanced bioreactor designs only incorporate one or two stimuli. Thus, the cell response measured is likely unrelated to the actual clinical performance. Integrating clinically relevant stimuli in bioreactor designs to study cell response can further advance the understanding of physical phenomenon naturally occurring in the body. In the future, the clinically informed biomimetic bioreactor could yield more efficiently translatable results for improved patient care.
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.