ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Autologous Skin Grafts, versus Tissue-engineered Skin Constructs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Next-generation epidermal patches: Bridging 3D and multidimensional printing for biomedical and personal care innovations.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Effect of Vinblastine Timing on Skin Graft Healing in a Rat Model.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- The Role and Efficacy of NovoSorb Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix in Complex Reconstructive Wounds: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Tissue-engineered dermal substitutes constructed by human embryonic stem cell-derived fibroblasts facilitate the repair of skin wounds.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Optimizing Wound Healing in Radial Forearm Donor Sites: A Comparative Study of Ulnar-Based Flap and Split-Thickness Skin Grafting.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary Management and Autologous Skin Grafting in a Patient with Severe Burns: A Case Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Acellular fish skin grafts in the treatment of diabetic wounds: Advantages and clinical translation.Journal of diabetes · 2024Review
- Advancements in bioengineered and autologous skin grafting techniques for skin reconstruction: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- The Inhibition of Interfacial Ice Formation and Stress Accumulation with Zwitterionic Betaine and Trehalose for High-Efficiency Skin Cryopreservation.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For over 100 years, autologous skin grafts have remained the gold standard for the reconstruction of wounds but are limited in availability. Acellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (acellular TCs) and cellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (cellular TCs) may address these limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare outcomes between them. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, querying MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to assess graft incorporation, failure, and wound healing. Case reports/series, reviews, in vitro/in vivo work, non-English articles or articles without full text were excluded. Results: Sixty-six articles encompassing 4076 patients were included. No significant differences were found between graft failure rates (P = 0.07) and mean difference of percent reepithelialization (p = 0.92) when split-thickness skin grafts were applied alone versus co-grafted with acellular TCs. Similar mean Vancouver Scar Scale was found for these two groups (p = 0.09). Twenty-one studies used at least one cellular TC. Weighted averages from pooled results did not reveal statistically significant differences in mean reepithelialization or failure rates for epidermal cellular TCs compared with split-thickness skin grafts (p = 0.55). Conclusions: This systematic review is the first to illustrate comparable functional and wound healing outcomes between split-thickness skin grafts alone and those co-grafted with acellular TCs. The use of cellular TCs seems promising from preliminary findings. However, these results are limited in clinical applicability due to the heterogeneity of study data, and further level 1 evidence is required to determine the safety and efficacy of these constructs.
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.