ArticlePloS one2024
In vitro experimental conditions and tools can influence the safety and biocompatibility results of antimicrobial electrospun biomaterials for wound healing.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Revisiting ISO 10993-5 In Vitro Cytotoxicity Standard Tests for Evaluation of Extracellular Matrix-Based Biomaterials.International journal of biomaterials · 2026Article
- Article
- Development of Rapid and Economic In Vitro Assay and Biorelevant Ex Vivo Biofilm Inhibition Wound Model to Test the Antibacterial Efficacy of Wound Dressings.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrospun (ES) fibrous nanomaterials have been widely investigated as novel biomaterials. These biomaterials have to be safe and biocompatible; hence, they need to be tested for cytotoxicity before being administered to patients. The aim of this study was to develop a suitable and biorelevant in vitro cytotoxicity assay for ES biomaterials (e.g. wound dressings). We compared different in vitro cytotoxicity assays, and our model wound dressing was made from polycaprolactone and polyethylene oxide and contained chloramphenicol as the active pharmaceutical ingredient. Baby Hamster Kidney cells (BHK-21), human primary fibroblasts and MTS assays together with real-time cell analysis were selected. The extract exposure and direct contact safety evaluation setups were tested together with microscopic techniques. We found that while extract exposure assays are suitable for the initial testing, the biocompatibility of the biomaterial is revealed in in vitro direct contact assays where cell interactions with the ES wound dressing are evaluated. We observed significant differences in the experimental outcome, caused by the experimental set up modification such as cell line choice, cell medium and controls used, conducting the phosphate buffer washing step or not. A more detailed technical protocol for the in vitro cytotoxicity assessment of ES wound dressings was developed.
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.