Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36950181›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

Tissue engineering in reconstructive urology-The current status and critical insights to set future directions-critical review.

Karolina Ławkowska, Clemens Rosenbaum, Piotr Petrasz, Luis Kluth, Krzysztof Koper, Tomasz Drewa, Marta Pokrywczynska, Jan Adamowicz, Trauma and Reconstructive Urology Working Party of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Application and progress of bio-derived materials in bladder regeneration and repair].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

9 authors.

Karolina ŁawkowskaDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Clemens RosenbaumDepartment of Urology Asklepios Klinik Barmbek Germany, Urologist in Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Piotr PetraszDepartment of Urology Voivodeship Hospital Gorzów Wielkopolski, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland.
Luis KluthDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Krzysztof KoperDepartment of Clinical Oncology and Nursing, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Curie-Skłodowskiej 9, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Tomasz DrewaDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Marta PokrywczynskaDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Jan AdamowiczDepartment of Regenerative Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Trauma and Reconstructive Urology Working Party of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced techniques of reconstructive urology are gradually reaching their limits in terms of their ability to restore urinary tract function and patients' quality of life. A tissue engineering-based approach to urinary tract reconstruction, utilizing cells and biomaterials, offers an opportunity to overcome current limitations. Although tissue engineering studies have been heralding the imminent introduction of this method into clinics for over a decade, tissue engineering is only marginally applied. In this review, we discuss the role of tissue engineering in reconstructive urology and try to answer the question of why such a promising technology has not proven its clinical usability so far.

Indexed as

biomaterialsreconstructive urologyregenerative medicinetissue engineeringurology

Identifiers

PMID36950181
PMCPMC10026841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read66
measurements read28
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.