Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34562945›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Biofabrication Strategies for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Evolution towards Clinical Applications.

Saman Naghieh, Gabriella Lindberg, Maryam Tamaddon, Chaozong Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organ Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Issues.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Saman NaghiehDivision of Biomedical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3674-6512
Gabriella LindbergChristchurch Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering (CReaTE) Group, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-2128
Maryam TamaddonInstitute of Orthopaedic & Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, University College London, Stanmore HA7 4LP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4669-3597
Chaozong LiuInstitute of Orthopaedic & Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, University College London, Stanmore HA7 4LP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9854-4043
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital · GBUniversity of Oregon · USUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

Versus Arthritis 21977
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofabrication has emerged as an attractive strategy to personalise medical care and provide new treatments for common organ damage or diseases. While it has made impactful headway in e.g., skin grafting, drug testing and cancer research purposes, its application to treat musculoskeletal tissue disorders in a clinical setting remains scarce. Albeit with several in vitro breakthroughs over the past decade, standard musculoskeletal treatments are still limited to palliative care or surgical interventions with limited long-term effects and biological functionality. To better understand this lack of translation, it is important to study connections between basic science challenges and developments with translational hurdles and evolving frameworks for this fully disruptive technology that is biofabrication. This review paper thus looks closely at the processing stage of biofabrication, specifically at the bioinks suitable for musculoskeletal tissue fabrication and their trends of usage. This includes underlying composite bioink strategies to address the shortfalls of sole biomaterials. We also review recent advances made to overcome long-standing challenges in the field of biofabrication, namely bioprinting of low-viscosity bioinks, controlled delivery of growth factors, and the fabrication of spatially graded biological and structural scaffolds to help biofabricate more clinically relevant constructs. We further explore the clinical application of biofabricated musculoskeletal structures, regulatory pathways, and challenges for clinical translation, while identifying the opportunities that currently lie closest to clinical translation. In this article, we consider the next era of biofabrication and the overarching challenges that need to be addressed to reach clinical relevance.

Indexed as

3D bioprintingadditive manufacturingbiomaterialsmusculoskeletal disorderssmart hydrogelstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID34562945
PMCPMC8466376
OpenAlexW3199045237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.