ReviewPolymers2025
Plant-Based Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: A Review.
Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Growing Relevance of Decellularized Plant Material as Functional Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering and Cultured Meat: A Scoping Review on Recent Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Development of a Scaffold from the Cob ofJournal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Plant-Based Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: Structure-Function, Processing, and Clinical Outlook-A Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Cellulose Plant-Derived Scaffolds as a Tool for Myometrium Modeling.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The global need for tissue and organ transplantation paved the way for plant-based scaffolds as cheap, ethical, and valuable alternatives to synthetic and animal-derived matrices for tissue regeneration. Over the years, the field has outgrown its initial scope, including the development of tissue models, platforms for drug testing and delivery, biosensors, and laboratory-grown meat. In this scoping review, we aimed to shed light on the frequency of the use of different plant matrices, the main techniques for decellularization, the functionalization methods for stimulating mammalian cell attachment, and the main results. To that purpose, we searched the keywords "decellularized" AND "scaffold" AND ("plant" OR "vegetable") in online-available databases (Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed, and Sage Journals). From the selection and study of 71 articles, we observed a multitude of plant sources and tissues, along with a large and inhomogeneous body of protocols used for decellularization, functionalization and recellularization of plant matrices, which all led to variable results, with different extents of success (mostly in vitro). Since the field of plant-based scaffolds shows high potential for growth in the next few years, driven by emerging biotechnological applications, we conclude that future research should focus on plant sources with low economic and environmental impacts while also pursuing the standardization of the methods involved and a much deeper characterization of the scaffold performance in vivo.
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.