Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869250›Full record

ReviewCommunications biology2022

Recent trends in bioartificial muscle engineering and their applications in cultured meat, biorobotic systems and biohybrid implants.

Eva Schätzlein, Andreas Blaeser

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Regenerative Medicine: Advanced Therapy for Muscle Tissue Restoration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Fat forward: Cultivating bovine adipocytes on bioscaffolds.Current research in food science · 2025
    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

2 authors.

Eva SchätzleinTechnical University of Darmstadt, Institute for BioMedical Printing Technology, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2358-6476
Andreas BlaeserTechnical University of Darmstadt, Institute for BioMedical Printing Technology, Darmstadt, Germany. blaeser@idd.tu-darmstadt.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3459-4268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in tissue engineering and biofabrication technology have yielded a plethora of biological tissues. Among these, engineering of bioartificial muscle stands out for its exceptional versatility and its wide range of applications. From the food industry to the technology sector and medicine, the development of this tissue has the potential to affect many different industries at once. However, to date, the biofabrication of cultured meat, biorobotic systems, and bioartificial muscle implants are still considered in isolation by individual peer groups. To establish common ground and share advances, this review outlines application-specific requirements for muscle tissue generation and provides a comprehensive overview of commonly used biofabrication strategies and current application trends. By solving the individual challenges and merging various expertise, synergetic leaps of innovation that inspire each other can be expected in all three industries in the future.

Indexed as

MusclesTissue EngineeringMeat

Identifiers

PMID35869250
PMCPMC9307618

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.