ReviewCancers2022
Effectiveness of Bioinks and the Clinical Value of 3D Bioprinted Glioblastoma Models: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Worldwide research on 3D printing for cancer: a dual-method analysis of bibliometrics and stratified focused thematic.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Review
- Biomaterials Based on Bacteria for Cancer Clinical Therapy.Biomaterials research · 2026Review
- Extracellular vesicles as delivery vehicles and therapeutic agents for glioblastoma treatment: A systematic review of in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Review
- Bioprinting of GelMA-Based Hydrogels to Aid in Creation of Biomimetic 3D Models for Glioblastoma.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional bioprinted in vitro glioma tumor constructs for synchrotron microbeam radiotherapy dosimetry and biological study using gelatin methacryloyl hydrogel.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Transcriptional landscape of the interaction of human Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Glioblastoma in bioprinted co-cultures.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many medical applications have arisen from the technological advancement of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting, including the printing of cancer models for better therapeutic practice whilst imitating the human system more accurately than animal and conventional in vitro systems. The objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively summarise information from existing studies on the effectiveness of bioinks in mimicking the tumour microenvironment of glioblastoma and their clinical value. Based on predetermined eligibility criteria, relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. Nineteen articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Alginate hydrogels were the most widely used bioinks in bioprinting. The majority of research found that alginate bioinks had excellent biocompatibility and maintained high cell viability. Advanced structural design, as well as the use of multicomponent bioinks, recapitulated the native in vivo morphology more closely and resulted in bioprinted glioblastoma models with higher drug resistance. In addition, 3D cell cultures were superior to monolayer or two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures for the simulation of an optimal tumour microenvironment. To more precisely mimic the heterogenous niche of tumours, future research should focus on bioprinting multicellular and multicomponent tumour models that are suitable for drug screening.
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.