Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37664811›Full record

ReviewEplasty2023

How to Select an Extracellular Matrix for Wound Repair: A Comprehensive Review.

Samuel Stetkevich, Monik Gupta, Richard Simman, Sarah E Jackson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Hydrogel-Based Skin Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel StetkevichDepartment of Medicine, UCLA-Oliveview Medical Center, Sylmar, California.
Monik GuptaThe University of Toledo Health Science Campus, Toledo, Ohio.
Richard SimmanJobst Vascular Institute, ProMedica Health Network, Toledo, Ohio.
Sarah E JacksonDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, Ohio.
University of Toledo · USMedica (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Extracellular MatrixWound Care

Identifiers

PMID37664811
PMCPMC10472439
OpenAlexW4386408042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.