ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Decellularized Extracellular Matrix-Based Bioinks for Tendon Regeneration in Three-Dimensional Bioprinting.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix (dECM) in Tendon Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Injectable human tendon extracellular matrix via isopropanol-assisted delipidation and mild decellularization for tendon regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Bioengineered Skin Grafts from Patient-Derived Decellularized Extracellular Matrix and Autologous Cells for Personalized Regenerative.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Hierarchy Reproduction: Multiphasic Strategies for Tendon/Ligament-Bone Junction Repair.Biomaterials research · 2025Review
- Artificial Single-Layer, Multi-Layer, and Gradient Scaffolds for Enhancing the Healing of Tendon-to-Bone Interfaces: A Mini-Review.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the last few years, attempts to improve the regeneration of damaged tendons have been rising due to the growing demand. However, current treatments to restore the original performance of the tissue focus on the usage of grafts; although, actual grafts are deficient because they often cannot provide enough support for tissue regeneration, leading to additional complications. The beneficial effect of combining 3D bioprinting and dECM as a novel bioink biomaterial has recently been described. Tendon dECMs have been obtained by using either chemical, biological, or/and physical treatments. Although decellularization protocols are not yet standardized, recently, different protocols have been published. New therapeutic approaches embrace the use of dECM in bioinks for 3D bioprinting, as it has shown promising results in mimicking the composition and the structure of the tissue. However, major obstacles include the poor structural integrity and slow gelation properties of dECM bioinks. Moreover, printing parameters such as speed and temperature have to be optimized for each dECM bioink. Here, we show that dECM bioink for 3D bioprinting provides a promising approach for tendon regeneration for future clinical applications.
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.