SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of micrografting technology in humans.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. 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.
- In Vitro and In Ovo CAM Model Evaluation of Periosteum-Derived Micrografts.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
AimTo critically assess the evidence on micrografting technology to evaluate its effectiveness when used alone or as an adjunct to regenerative treatment in various medical and dental applications.MethodsSeven electronic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature EBSCOhost, Web of Science Core Collection, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, were searched until 15 July 2024. Risk of bias assessment and qualitative and quantitative (random-effect models) analyses were conducted.ResultsA total of 55 studies were identified. Most studies (n = 24) reported on burns, followed by 10 studies on ulcers/wounds, 7 on androgenetic alopecia, 3 on vitiligo, 3 on cartilage and bone defects, and 1 on coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Dental applications included sinus lift (three studies), socket preservation (two studies), and intrabody defects (two studies). A meta-analysis of four studies on the management of burns confirmed that micrografting led to reduced healing periods compared with other grafting techniques (weighted mean difference: -0.98, 95% confidence interval: -1.84 to -0.12, p = 0.03), with a high level of heterogeneity (83.57%) and risk of bias.ConclusionMicrografting technology may lead to shorter healing time and improved patient morbidity.
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.