ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Experimental Protocols to Test Aortic Soft Tissues: A Systematic Review.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational modeling of tissue damage preceding aortic dissection: a coupled biphasic and reactive viscoelastic framework.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Severity and duration-dependent aortic stiffening in a rabbit coarctation model identifies constitutive material parameters as promising regional biomarkers for hypertension progression.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Novel Experimental Setup for Ascending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Inflation Testing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Modulating vascular stresses through homeostatic remodelling: a multi-patient analysis of atherosclerotic carotid biomechanics.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- Early Prediction of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture Risk Using Numerical Biomechanical Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Experimental protocols are fundamental for quantifying the mechanical behaviour of soft tissue. These data are crucial for advancing the understanding of soft tissue mechanics, developing and calibrating constitutive models, and informing the development of more accurate and predictive computational simulations and artificial intelligence tools. This paper offers a comprehensive review of experimental tests conducted on soft aortic tissues, employing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, based on the Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE, Google Scholar and PubMed databases. This study includes a detailed overview of the test method protocols, providing insights into practical methodologies, specimen preparation and full-field measurements. The review also briefly discusses the post-processing methods applied to extract material parameters from experimental data. In particular, the results are analysed and discussed providing representative domains of stress-strain curves for both uniaxial and biaxial tests on human aortic tissue.
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.