Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36523673›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Methodologies of Autologous Skin Cell Spray Graft.

Anand Shree, Anjali A Vagga

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Anand ShreeAnatomy, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
Anjali A VaggaBiochemistry, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare workers continue to struggle with skin wound management. Despite the fact that there have been many methods created throughout the decades for skin regeneration, contemporary developments in regenerative medicine provide highly reliable methods for creating synthetic skin replacements, such as electrospinning, 3D bioprinting, or spraying, among all others. Specifically, skin sprays have been a cutting-edge method that is currently undergoing clinical testing and has lots of promise for providing cells and hydrogels to cure both acute and chronic wounds. Deposition of cells and scaffolding materials in successive layers over the burnt regions characterises 3D bioprinting for burn injury repair. Depending on the desired outcome, bioprinting of skin may be performed in vivo or in vitro. However, the location of the printing and the time required for the tissue to mature separates these two methods. Bioprinted skin for use in burn repair faces technical and regulatory hurdles before it may be used in clinical settings. Skin sprays provide various benefits to traditional wound care methods, inclusive of ease of administration, the ability to treat broad wound regions, and a consistent dispersion of the sprayed substance. The most recent developments in this technology are reviewed in this article, along with a thorough explanation of investigational and presently marketed acellular and cellular skin spray solutions that are utilized to treat a range of illnesses and administer various experimental materials. Additionally, we describe regulatory processes for their capitalization and cover key clinical studies for various skin illnesses and associated treatment circumstances because skin spray products are susceptible to several classifications. Finally, we provide an argument and offer potential future developments in the biotechnology of skin sprays for improved clinical dermatological applications.

Indexed as

collagenhydrogelsskinspray grafttissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID36523673
PMCPMC9744400

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.