Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38397944›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2024

Comparative Analysis of Stromal Vascular Fraction and Alternative Mechanisms in Bone Fracture Stimulation to Bridge the Gap between Nature and Technological Advancement: A Systematic Review.

Evgeniy Nikolaevich Goncharov, Oleg Aleksandrovich Koval, Eduard Nikolaevich Bezuglov, Mikhail Engelgard, Eremin Ilya Igorevich, Konstantin Velentinovich Kotenko, Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion Ramirez, Nicola Montemurro

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Evgeniy Nikolaevich GoncharovPetrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery, 121359 Moscow, Russia.
Oleg Aleksandrovich KovalPetrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery, 121359 Moscow, Russia.
Eduard Nikolaevich BezuglovPetrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery, 121359 Moscow, Russia.
Mikhail EngelgardPetrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery, 121359 Moscow, Russia.
Eremin Ilya IgorevichPetrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery, 121359 Moscow, Russia.
Konstantin Velentinovich KotenkoPetrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery, 121359 Moscow, Russia.
Manuel De Jesus Encarnacion RamirezDepartment of Neurosurgery, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-3541-0635
Nicola MontemurroDepartment of Neurosurgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana (AOUP), 56100 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3686-8907
Russian Scientific Center of Surgery · RUAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITPeoples' Friendship University of Russia · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious stimulation methods, including electrical, ultrasound, mechanical, and biological interventions, are explored, each leveraging intricate cellular and molecular dynamics to expedite healing. The advent of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) marks a significant stride, offering multifarious benefits in bone healing, from enhanced bone formation to optimal vascular integration, drawing a harmonious balance between innate mechanisms and scientific advancements.

methodsThis systematic review was conducted focusing on literature from 2016 to 2023 and encompassing various bone healing stimulation mechanisms like SVF, electrical, ultrasound, and mechanical stimulation. The extracted data underwent meticulous synthesis and analysis, emphasizing comparative evaluations of mechanisms, applications, and outcomes of each intervention.

resultsThe reviewed studies reveal the potential of SVF in bone fracture healing, with its regenerative and anti-inflammatory effects. The purification of SVF is crucial for safe therapeutic use. Characterization involves flow cytometry and microscopy. Studies show SVF's efficacy in bone regeneration, versatility in various contexts, and potential for clinical use. SVF appears superior to electrical, ultrasound, and mechanical stimulation, with low complications.

conclusionsThis review compares bone healing methods, including SVF. It provides valuable insights into SVF's potential for bone regeneration. However, due to limited human studies and potential bias, cautious interpretation is necessary. Further research is essential to validate these findings and determine the optimal SVF applications in bone healing.

Indexed as

graft survivalregenerative medicinestromal vascular fractionsurgerytissue regeneration

Identifiers

PMID38397944
PMCPMC10887176
OpenAlexW4391450851

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.