Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34641210›Full record

ReviewPolymers2021

Advocating Electrically Conductive Scaffolds with Low Immunogenicity for Biomedical Applications: A Review.

Dania Adila Ahmad Ruzaidi, Mohd Muzamir Mahat, Saiful Arifin Shafiee, Zarif Mohamed Sofian, Awis Sukarni Mohmad Sabere, Rosmamuhamadani Ramli, Hazwanee Osman, Hairul Hisham Hamzah, Zaidah Zainal Ariffin, Kishor Kumar Sadasivuni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

10 authors.

Dania Adila Ahmad RuzaidiFaculty of Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Malaysia.
Mohd Muzamir MahatFaculty of Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-2448-3241
Saiful Arifin ShafieeKulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, Kuantan 25200, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-0907-624X
Zarif Mohamed SofianDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia.
Awis Sukarni Mohmad SabereKulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Bandar Indera Mahkota, Kuantan 25200, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-2168-9391
Rosmamuhamadani RamliFaculty of Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Malaysia.
Hazwanee OsmanCentre of Foundation Studies UiTM, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Cawangan Selangor, Kampus Dengkil, Dengkil 43800, Malaysia.
Hairul Hisham HamzahSchool of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Gelugor 11800, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-8296-1360
Zaidah Zainal AriffinFaculty of Applied Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Malaysia.
Kishor Kumar SadasivuniCenter for Advanced Materials, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0003-2730-6483

Funding

Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation) UREP grant # UREP27-044-3-016 from
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scaffolds support and promote the formation of new functional tissues through cellular interactions with living cells. Various types of scaffolds have found their way into biomedical science, particularly in tissue engineering. Scaffolds with a superior tissue regenerative capacity must be biocompatible and biodegradable, and must possess excellent functionality and bioactivity. The different polymers that are used in fabricating scaffolds can influence these parameters. Polysaccharide-based polymers, such as collagen and chitosan, exhibit exceptional biocompatibility and biodegradability, while the degradability of synthetic polymers can be improved using chemical modifications. However, these modifications require multiple steps of chemical reactions to be carried out, which could potentially compromise the end product's biosafety. At present, conducting polymers, such as poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) poly(4-styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT: PSS), polyaniline, and polypyrrole, are often incorporated into matrix scaffolds to produce electrically conductive scaffold composites. However, this will reduce the biodegradability rate of scaffolds and, therefore, agitate their biocompatibility. This article discusses the current trends in fabricating electrically conductive scaffolds, and provides some insight regarding how their immunogenicity performance can be interlinked with their physical and biodegradability properties.

Indexed as

biocompatibilitybiomedical applicationconducting polymerconductive scaffoldsdegradation ratefabrication of scaffoldsPEDOT: PSStissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID34641210
PMCPMC8513068

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.