ReviewGels (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Bioprinting-By-Design of Hydrogel-Based Biomaterials for In Situ Skin Tissue Engineering.
Review in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Hydrogel platforms for engineered live biotherapeutics: materials, microbial integration and clinical potential.RSC pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Emerging Smart and Adaptive Hydrogels for Next-Generation Tissue Engineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Strategies in Tissue Regenerative Engineering for the Treatment of Human Infertility.Stem cell reviews and reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Burns are one of the most common trauma injuries worldwide and have detrimental effects on the entire body. However, the current standard of care is autologous split thickness skin grafts (STSGs), which induces additional injuries to the patient. Therefore, the development of alternative treatments to replace traditional STSGs is critical, and bioprinting could be the future of burn care. Specifically, in situ bioprinting offers several advantages in clinical applications compared to conventional in vitro bioprinting, primarily due to its ability to deposit bioink directly onto the wound. This review provides an in-depth discussion of the aspects involved in in situ bioprinting for skin regeneration, including crosslinking mechanisms, properties of natural and synthetic hydrogel-based bioinks, various in situ bioprinting methods, and the clinical translation of in situ bioprinting. The current limitations of in situ bioprinting is the ideal combination of bioink and printing mechanism to allow multi-material dispensing or to produce well-orchestrated constructs in a timely manner in clinical settings. However, extensive ongoing research is focused on addressing these challenges, and they do not diminish the significant potential of in situ bioprinting for skin regeneration.
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.