ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Clinical translation of tissue-engineered oesophageal grafts: are patients ready for us?
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Functional integration of an autologous engineered esophagus in a large-animal model.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
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
purposeWe sought to engage with expert patient/carers to understand attitudes towards use of tissue engineering (TE) for long-gap oesophageal atresia (OA).
methodsAn in-person engagement event for 70 patients/parents was held by the OA patient group, TOFS. Attitudes towards TE were assessed before and after a talk on use of TE oesophagi in a pre-clinical OA model. Perceptions were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (median [range]) and compared using Mann-Whitney test.
results43 attendees responded; 56% parents/caregivers, 21% patients, 7% healthcare workers, 16% unreported. Most (85%) had some awareness of TE but for 15%, it was a new concept. Attendees were receptive to TE; 89% reported no concerns about growth of their/child(s) cells in a lab and 61% reported no concerns about using animal products. Perceptions of TE significantly improved after the presentation from 4 (2-5, n = 32) to 5 (3-5, n = 28) p < 0.0001, and 96% would like to be involved in focus groups on development of a TE product for use in OA.
conclusionInput from key stakeholders is essential to introduction of TE constructs clinically. The overall response to TE constructs was positive, and informs development of an OA-specific focus group to guide translation.
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.