Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41048410›Full record

ReviewBiomaterials and biosystems2025

Mind the gap: Standardising preclinical testing of bone-repair biomaterials.

Anders Palmquist, Furqan A Shah

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomaterials and biosystems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anders PalmquistDepartment of Biomaterials, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Furqan A ShahDepartment of Biomaterials, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of bone-repair biomaterials is rapidly expanding to meet the needs of an ageing and increasingly active population, often with compromised bone quality. However, inconsistencies in how materials are assessed preclinically, across animal models, sampling strategies, and analytical techniques, have led to flawed comparisons and misleading claims. Fundamental differences in material properties and the biological responses they elicit are frequently ignored, conflating distinct mechanisms of bone formation. This "

Indexed as

Bone qualityBone-repair biomaterialsBone structurePreclinical evaluation

Identifiers

PMID41048410
PMCPMC12489930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.