Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35197483›Full record

ReviewNPJ Regenerative medicine2022

Animal studies for the evaluation of in situ tissue-engineered vascular grafts - a systematic review, evidence map, and meta-analysis.

Suzanne E Koch, Bente J de Kort, Noud Holshuijsen, Hannah F M Brouwer, Dewy C van der Valk, Patricia Y W Dankers, Judith A K R van Luijk, Carlijn R Hooijmans, Rob B M de Vries, Carlijn V C Bouten and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Research progress on calcification mechanism and anti-calcification strategies of vascular grafts].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Suzanne E Koch *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1521-4768
Bente J de Kort *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Noud HolshuijsenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Hannah F M BrouwerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Dewy C van der ValkDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Patricia Y W DankersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Judith A K R van LuijkSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carlijn R HooijmansSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rob B M de VriesSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carlijn V C BoutenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1035-5094
Anthal I P M SmitsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. a.i.p.m.smits@tue.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3665-7106
Eindhoven University of Technology · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) 024.003.013ZonMw (Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development) 114024119ZonMw (Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development) 436001003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vascular in situ tissue engineering (TE) is an approach that uses bioresorbable grafts to induce endogenous regeneration of damaged blood vessels. The evaluation of newly developed in situ TE vascular grafts heavily relies on animal experiments. However, no standard for in vivo models or study design has been defined, hampering inter-study comparisons and translational efficiency. To provide input for formulating such standard, the goal of this study was to map all animal experiments for vascular in situ TE using off-the-shelf available, resorbable synthetic vascular grafts. A literature search (PubMed, Embase) yielded 15,896 studies, of which 182 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 5,101 animals). The reports displayed a wide variety of study designs, animal models, and biomaterials. Meta-analysis on graft patency with subgroup analysis for species, age, sex, implantation site, and follow-up time demonstrated model-specific variations. This study identifies possibilities for improved design and reporting of animal experiments to increase translational value.

Identifiers

PMID35197483
PMCPMC8866508
OpenAlexW4214563380

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.