ArticleMethods and protocols2023
Development of a Wound-Healing Protocol for In Vitro Evaluation of Urothelial Cell Growth.
Article in Methods and protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The In Vitro Wound-Scratch Assay: Applications, Technical Advances, and Limitations in Wound Healing Research.International wound journal · 2026Review
- Development of an Ex Vivo Platform to Model Urethral Healing.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- A hybrid combination ofFrontiers in urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Urethral healing is plagued by strictures, impacting quality of life and medical costs. Various growth factors (GFs) have shown promise as therapeutic approaches to improve healing, but there is no protocol for in vitro comparison between GFs. This study focuses the development of a biomimetic in vitro urothelial healing assay designed to mimic early in vivo healing, followed by an evaluation of urothelial cell growth in response to GFs.
methodsWound-healing assays were developed with human urothelial cells and used to compared six GFs (EGF, FGF-2, IGF-1, PDGF, TGF-β1, and VEGF) at three concentrations (1 ng/mL, 10 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL) over a 48 h period. A commercial GF-containing medium (EGF, TGF-α, KGF, and Extract P) and a GF-free medium were used as controls.
resultsThere was a statistically significant increase in cell growth for IGF-1 at 10 and 100 ng/mL compared to both controls (
conclusionThis study shows the development of a clinically relevant wound-healing assay to evaluate urothelial cell growth. It is the first to compare GFs for future use in reconstructive techniques to improve urethral healing.
Indexed as
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.