Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37109483›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Out of Box Thinking to Tangible Science: A Benchmark History of 3D Bio-Printing in Regenerative Medicine and Tissues Engineering.

Karthika Pushparaj, Balamuralikrishnan Balasubramanian, Manikantan Pappuswamy, Vijaya Anand Arumugam, Kaliannan Durairaj, Wen-Chao Liu, Arun Meyyazhagan, Sungkwon Park

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Autopsy of a Hemodialysis Machine: Potential for Recycling at the End of the Life Cycle.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025
    Article
  3. Extrusion bioprinting: meeting the promise of human tissue biofabrication?Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Design strategy primer for organ-on-chips.Biomaterials translational · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

Karthika PushparajDepartment of Zoology, School of Biosciences, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women, Coimbatore 641 043, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1597-6001
Balamuralikrishnan BalasubramanianDepartment of Food Science and Biotechnology, College of Life Science, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6938-1495
Manikantan PappuswamyDepartment of Life Science, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru 560 076, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6047-3702
Vijaya Anand ArumugamDepartment of Human Genetics and Molecular Biology, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore 641 046, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7485-1586
Kaliannan DurairajDepartment of Infection Biology, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University, lksan 54538, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1428-0432
Wen-Chao LiuDepartment of Animal Science, College of Coastal Agricultural Sciences, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang 524088, China.
Arun MeyyazhaganDepartment of Life Science, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru 560 076, Karnataka, India.
Sungkwon ParkDepartment of Food Science and Biotechnology, College of Life Science, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7684-9719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancements and developments in the 3D bioprinting have been promising and have met the needs of organ transplantation. Current improvements in tissue engineering constructs have enhanced their applications in regenerative medicines and other medical fields. The synergistic effects of 3D bioprinting have brought technologies such as tissue engineering, microfluidics, integrated tissue organ printing, in vivo bioprinted tissue implants, artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches together. These have greatly impacted interventions in medical fields, such as medical implants, multi-organ-on-chip models, prosthetics, drug testing tissue constructs and much more. This technological leap has offered promising personalized solutions for patients with chronic diseases, and neurodegenerative disorders, and who have been in severe accidents. This review discussed the various standing printing methods, such as inkjet, extrusion, laser-assisted, digital light processing, and stereolithographic 3D bioprinter models, adopted for tissue constructs. Additionally, the properties of natural, synthetic, cell-laden, dECM-based, short peptides, nanocomposite and bioactive bioinks are briefly discussed. Sequels of several tissue-laden constructs such as skin, bone and cartilage, liver, kidney, smooth muscles, cardiac and neural tissues are briefly analyzed. Challenges, future perspectives and the impact of microfluidics in resolving the limitations in the field, along with 3D bioprinting, are discussed. Certainly, a technology gap still exists in the scaling up, industrialization and commercialization of this technology for the benefit of stakeholders.

Indexed as

3D bioprintingbioinkshydrogelsmicrofluidicsorgan-on-chiptissue scaffolds

Identifiers

PMID37109483
PMCPMC10145662

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.