ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2025
A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Studies on Bacterial Cellulose: From the Earliest Uses to Contemporary Innovations.
Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kombucha Bacterial Cellulose Obtained from Tea Fermentation for Biomedical Applications.ACS applied engineering materials · 2026Article
- Nanocellulose as an Active Biointerface: Design Principles for Infection-Adaptive and Regenerative Biomaterials.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
- Coral-Inspired Bacterial Cellulose/Calcium-Phosphorus Composites via Synchronous In Situ Biomineralization.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Cellulose-Based Hydrogels for Chronic Wound Healing: Bridging Biomaterial Design and Clinical Unmet Needs.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Probiotic-Based Materials as Living Therapeutics.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Studies on Bacterial Cellulose: From the Earliest Uses to Contemporary Innovations.Advanced healthcare materials · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bacterial cellulose (BC), a biopolymer produced by Gram-negative bacteria such as those from the Komagataeibacter genus, has emerged as a promising material in biomedical applications due to its exceptional purity, biocompatibility, mechanical strength, versatility in sterilization, biodegradability, and sustainable production. This comprehensive review traces the evolution of BC-based medical products from their initial development in the 1980s to present-day innovations, highlighting the progression of clinical evidence supporting their use. Early clinical studies primarily focused on BC as a temporary skin substitute for burns and ulcers. Over time, the scope of BC applications expanded to include dural defect repair, tympanic membrane reconstruction, and fetal surgery for spina bifida. The quality of clinical evidence has improved, with recent years seeing an increase in randomized controlled trials and larger patient cohorts. Several BC-based products are already commercially available, supported by regulatory approvals and a growing body of clinical data. This review seeks to serve as a valuable resource by providing an exhaustive recapitulation of published clinical studies on BC-based medical devices encompassing 3,857 subjects and offering insights into their efficacy, safety, and regulatory considerations. The review outlines future research directions to validate BC's potential across a wide range of in vivo biomedical applications.
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.