ReviewMedComm2021
Novel cell sources for bone regeneration.
Review in MedComm, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Integrating Micro- and Nanostructured Platforms and Biological Drugs to Enhance Biomaterial-Based Bone Regeneration Strategies.Biomacromolecules · 2025Review
- Expansion of human umbilical cord derived mesenchymal stem cells in regenerative medicine.World journal of stem cells · 2024Article
- Association between Donor Age and Osteogenic Potential of Human Adipose Stem Cells in Bone Tissue Engineering.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
- Research progress of 3D printed poly (ether ether ketone) in the reconstruction of craniomaxillofacial bone defects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- A novel injectable fibromodulin-releasing granular hydrogel for tendon healing and functional recovery.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Article
- Delivery of therapeutic agents and cells to pancreatic islets: Towards a new era in the treatment of diabetes.Molecular aspects of medicine · 2022Review
- Integrative analysis of microRNA-320a-related genes in osteoarthritis cartilage.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Impact of Frontier Development of Alveolar Bone Grafting on Orthodontic Tooth Movement.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Novel cell sources for bone regeneration.MedComm · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A plethora of both acute and chronic conditions, including traumatic, degenerative, malignant, or congenital disorders, commonly induce bone disorders often associated with severe persisting pain and limited mobility. Over 1 million surgical procedures involving bone excision, bone grafting, and fracture repair are performed each year in the U.S. alone, resulting in immense levels of public health challenges and corresponding financial burdens. Unfortunately, the innate self-healing capacity of bone is often inadequate for larger defects over a critical size. Moreover, as direct transplantation of committed osteoblasts is hindered by deficient cell availability, limited cell spreading, and poor survivability, an urgent need for novel cell sources for bone regeneration is concurrent. Thanks to the development in stem cell biology and cell reprogramming technology, many multipotent and pluripotent cells that manifest promising osteogenic potential are considered the regenerative remedy for bone defects. Considering these cells' investigation is still in its relative infancy, each of them offers their own particular challenges that must be conquered before the large-scale clinical application.
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.