ReviewEplasty2023
How to Select an Extracellular Matrix for Wound Repair: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Eplasty, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Use of a Decellularized Porcine Placental Extracellular Matrix in Hard-to-Heal Wounds: A Retrospective, Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hydrogel-Based Skin Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An extracellular matrix (ECM) is a network of proteins and other molecules that provide support and structure to cells and tissues in the body. Since its discovery in 1930, researchers have reproduced the ECM through an array of evolving technologies, developing products that accelerate healing times, minimize scarring, and reduce pain. When selecting which ECM product to use, physicians rely on personal experience while considering wound location, type of tissue lost, exposed structures, chronicity, and even the patient's religious preferences. While comparison trials between a few different types of ECMs exist, there lacks a thorough investigation that assesses a majority of ECMs against each other. Methods: Herein, we conducted a literature review using the PubMed database and utilized 71 articles to identify the best ECM for wound healing and positive patient outcomes. The primary search terms included Results: We compared the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of each ECM and concisely illustrated these findings to provide a guide on how to select an ECM Conclusions: Our findings assist in removing the subjectivity component of selecting an ECM and suggest further comparison or head-to-head trials would yield a more algorithmic approach to wound healing. We suggest to consider implementing the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score as an additional objective comparison method in these future trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37664811PMC10472439W4386408042What 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.