Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35447731›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Novel Techniques and Future Perspective for Investigating Critical-Size Bone Defects.

Elijah Ejun Huang, Ning Zhang, Huaishuang Shen, Xueping Li, Masahiro Maruyama, Takeshi Utsunomiya, Qi Gao, Roberto A Guzman, Stuart B Goodman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Surgical induction model of femoral defect in Wistar rats for bone repair histology.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elijah Ejun HuangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9752-8220
Ning ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9513-9288
Huaishuang ShenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.
Xueping LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.
Masahiro MaruyamaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1339-0023
Takeshi UtsunomiyaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.
Qi GaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0175-566X
Roberto A GuzmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1623-6336
Stuart B GoodmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94304, USA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A critical-size bone defect is a challenging clinical problem in which a gap between bone ends will not heal and will become a nonunion. The current treatment is to harvest and transplant an autologous bone graft to facilitate bone bridging. To develop less invasive but equally effective treatment options, one needs to first have a comprehensive understanding of the bone healing process. Therefore, it is imperative to leverage the most advanced technologies to elucidate the fundamental concepts of the bone healing process and develop innovative therapeutic strategies to bridge the nonunion gap. In this review, we first discuss the current animal models to study critical-size bone defects. Then, we focus on four novel analytic techniques and discuss their strengths and limitations. These four technologies are mass cytometry (CyTOF) for enhanced cellular analysis, imaging mass cytometry (IMC) for enhanced tissue special imaging, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) for detailed transcriptome analysis, and Luminex assays for comprehensive protein secretome analysis. With this new understanding of the healing of critical-size bone defects, novel methods of diagnosis and treatment will emerge.

Indexed as

critical-size bone defectCyTOFimaging mass cytometry (IMC)Luminexmass cytometryscRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID35447731
PMCPMC9027954
OpenAlexW4223535858

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.