Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36394038›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

Effect of chitosan/inorganic nanomaterial scaffolds on bone regeneration and related influencing factors in animal models: A systematic review.

Anjie Guo, Yi Zheng, Yu Zhong, Shuixue Mo, Shanbao Fang

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Natural Polymers in Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR).Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biodegradable Polymers in Veterinary Medicine-A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anjie GuoCollege of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Yi ZhengCollege of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Yu ZhongCollege of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Shuixue MoCollege of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Shanbao FangCollege of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Guangxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone tissue engineering (BTE) provides a promising alternative for transplanting. Due to biocompatibility and biodegradability, chitosan-based scaffolds have been extensively studied. In recent years, many inorganic nanomaterials have been utilized to modify the performance of chitosan-based materials. In order to ascertain the impact of chitosan/inorganic nanomaterial scaffolds on bone regeneration and related key factors, this study presents a systematic comparison of various scaffolds in the calvarial critical-sized defect (CSD) model. A total of four electronic databases were searched without publication date or language restrictions up to April 2022. The Animal Research Reporting of

Indexed as

animal modelsbone regenerationcalvarial bone defectschitosaninorganic nanomaterials

Identifiers

PMID36394038
PMCPMC9643585
OpenAlexW4307552891

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.