ReviewFrontiers in molecular biosciences2021
A Minireview of Microfluidic Scaffold Materials in Tissue Engineering.
Review in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrogel Microspheres for Biomedical Applications.Small science · 2026Review
- Recent Insights into Organoid-Derived Extracellular Vesicles and Their Biomedical Applications.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Development of a 3D tumor model based on decellularized matrix using high-throughput approaches.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Light-based 3D bioprinting technology applied to repair and regeneration of different tissues: A rational proposal for biomedical applications.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Roadmap on multifunctional materials for drug delivery.JPhys materials · 2024Review
- Current Biomaterials for Wound Healing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Toward a New Generation of Bio-Scaffolds for Neural Tissue Engineering: Challenges and Perspectives.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Modular Microfluidics: Current Status and Future Prospects.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Microfluidics for 3D Cell and Tissue Cultures: Microfabricative and Ethical Aspects Updates.Cells · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2020, nearly 107,000 people in the U.S needed a lifesaving organ transplant, but due to a limited number of donors, only ∼35% of them have actually received it. Thus, successful bio-manufacturing of artificial tissues and organs is central to satisfying the ever-growing demand for transplants. However, despite decades of tremendous investments in regenerative medicine research and development conventional scaffold technologies have failed to yield viable tissues and organs. Luckily,
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.