ReviewAPL bioengineering2024
Static magnetic fields in regenerative medicine.
Review in APL bioengineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) with magnetic fields (MFs) stimulation in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infected wounds in rats using 532 and 660 nm laser.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Arrayed Magnetic Accelerator Synergistically Enhances Orthodontic Tooth Movement via Microtubule Assembly-Mediated Periodontal Remodeling.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Magnetic fields as biophysical activators of autophagy: A preclinical systematic review.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Multifunctional FePharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Article
- Recent Studies on the Effects of Static Magnetic Fields (SMF) on Reproductive Function.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
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
All organisms on Earth live in the weak but ubiquitous geomagnetic field. Human beings are also exposed to magnetic fields generated by multiple sources, ranging from permanent magnets to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hospitals. It has been shown that different magnetic fields can generate various effects on different tissues and cells. Among them, stem cells appear to be one of the most sensitive cell types to magnetic fields, which are the fundamental units of regenerative therapies. In this review, we focus on the bioeffects of static magnetic fields (SMFs), which are related to regenerative medicine. Most reports in the literature focus on the influence of SMF on bone regeneration, wound healing, and stem cell production. Multiple aspects of the cellular events, including gene expression, cell signaling pathways, reactive oxygen species, inflammation, and cytoskeleton, have been shown to be affected by SMFs. Although no consensus yet, current evidence indicates that moderate and high SMFs could serve as a promising physical tool to promote bone regeneration, wound healing, neural differentiation, and dental regeneration. All
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.