Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34735456›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Osteoblast-osteoclast co-cultures: A systematic review and map of available literature.

Stefan J A Remmers, Bregje W M de Wildt, Michelle A M Vis, Eva S R Spaander, Rob B M de Vries, Keita Ito, Sandra Hofmann

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Stimuli-responsive hybrid materials for 4DMaterials today. Bio · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical Characteristics, Current Treatment Options, Potential Mechanisms, Biomarkers, and Therapeutic Targets in Avascular Necrosis of Femoral Head.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Stefan J A RemmersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and the Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4615-2600
Bregje W M de WildtDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and the Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Michelle A M VisDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and the Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Eva S R SpaanderDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and the Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Rob B M de VriesDepartment for Health Evidence, SYRCLE, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Keita ItoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and the Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Sandra HofmannDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and the Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2568-8388

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug research with animal models is expensive, time-consuming and translation to clinical trials is often poor, resulting in a desire to replace, reduce, and refine the use of animal models. One approach to replace and reduce the use of animal models is to use in vitro cell-culture models. To study bone physiology, bone diseases and drugs, many studies have been published using osteoblast-osteoclast co-cultures. The use of osteoblast-osteoclast co-cultures is usually not clearly mentioned in the title and abstract, making it difficult to identify these studies without a systematic search and thorough review. As a result, researchers are all developing their own methods, leading to conceptually similar studies with many methodological differences and, as a consequence, incomparable results. The aim of this study was to systematically review existing osteoblast-osteoclast co-culture studies published up to 6 January 2020, and to give an overview of their methods, predetermined outcome measures (formation and resorption, and ALP and TRAP quantification as surrogate markers for formation and resorption, respectively), and other useful parameters for analysis. Information regarding these outcome measures was extracted and collected in a database, and each study was further evaluated on whether both the osteoblasts and osteoclasts were analyzed using relevant outcome measures. From these studies, additional details on methods, cells and culture conditions were extracted into a second database to allow searching on more characteristics. The two databases presented in this publication provide an unprecedented amount of information on cells, culture conditions and analytical techniques for using and studying osteoblast-osteoclast co-cultures. They allow researchers to identify publications relevant to their specific needs and allow easy validation and comparison with existing literature. Finally, we provide the information and tools necessary for others to use, manipulate and expand the databases for their needs.

Indexed as

Coculture TechniquesAnimalsBone ResorptionCell DifferentiationDatabases, FactualDrug DiscoveryHumansModels, AnimalOsteoblastsOsteoclastsRANK LigandRANK Ligand

Identifiers

PMID34735456
PMCPMC8568160

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.