Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34746736›Full record

ReviewMaterials today. Bio2021

Modification of the surface nanotopography of implant devices: A translational perspective.

K Harawaza, B Cousins, P Roach, A Fernandez

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Materials today. Bio, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Research progress of absorbable stents.International journal of medical sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

K HarawazaChemistry Department, School of Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
B CousinsChemistry Department, School of Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
P RoachChemistry Department, School of Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
A FernandezChemistry Department, School of Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing need for the development of superior, safe, and more sophisticated implants, especially as our society historically has been moving towards an increasingly aging population. Currently, most research is being focused on the next generation of advanced medical implants, that are not only biocompatible but have modified surfaces that direct specific immunomodulation at cellular level. While there is a plethora of information on cell-surface interaction and how surfaces can be nanofabricated at research level, less is known about how the academic knowledge has been translated into clinical trials and commercial technologies. In this review, we provide a clinical translational perspective on the use of controlled physical surface modification of medical implants, presenting an analysis of data acquired from clinical trials and commercial products. We also evaluate the

Indexed as

Clinical translationClinical trialsImplantsNanotopographySurface modification

Identifiers

PMID34746736
PMCPMC8554633

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.