ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Amniotic Membrane Scaffolds Support Organized Muscle Regeneration in A Murine Volumetric Muscle Defect Model.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Categorization of Perinatal Derivatives for Orthopedic Applications.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current treatment for volumetric muscle loss is limited to muscle transfer or acellular collagen scaffold (ACS) therapies that are associated with donor site morbidity and nonfunctional fibrosis, respectively. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of amniotic membrane scaffold (AMS) for volumetric muscle loss treatment. Methods: Murine quadriceps defects were created and randomized to three groups (n = 5/group): untreated controls, ACS, and AMS. In vivo muscle regeneration volume was quantified by MRI and microcomputed tomography. Muscle explants were analyzed using standard histology and whole-mount immunofluorescence at 8 weeks. Results: The cross-sectional muscle regeneration ratio was 0.64 ± 0.3 for AMS, 0.48 ± 0.07 for ACS, and 0.4 0 ± 0.03 for controls as assessed by MRI ( Conclusion: AMS mediated muscle healing was characterized by increased cellular infiltration and organized muscle formation when compared with controls and ACS.
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.