Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41150301›Full record

ReviewPolymers2025

Hydrogels from Renewable Resources: Advances in 3D Networks Based on Cellulose and Hemicellulose.

Diana Elena Ciolacu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Diana Elena CiolacuDepartment of Natural Polymers, Bioactive and Biocompatible Materials, "Petru Poni" Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry, 700487 Iasi, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-0906-9835

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, natural polymers have gained significant attention due to their abundance, biodegradability and versatility, offering a promising alternative to conventional synthetic polymers. Among natural polymers, cellulose and hemicellulose hold a special place, being the most abundant plant polysaccharides in nature, which serve as key structural materials in the synthesis of hydrogels. Cellulose has attracted significant attention in the development of hydrogels due to the fact that it confers desirable mechanical properties, high water absorption and biocompatibility. Hemicellulose, although with a more amorphous structure than cellulose, contains various functional groups that facilitate its chemical modification. With an environmentally friendly nature and low cost, these polysaccharides have gained major interest and are highly appreciated by both the academic and industrial communities. This review comprehensively presents recent advances in the design and development of hydrogels made from renewable biopolymers-cellulose and hemicellulose-providing an in-depth exploration of the information recorded over the past five years. The latest strategies for the synthesis of hydrogels, their formation mechanisms and their most important properties are analyzed and summarized in detail from the perspective of physical and chemical crosslinking. A comparative analysis is performed between these hydrogels, highlighting not only the advantages and disadvantages of each type of hydrogel but also the main challenges associated with the balance between mechanical strength, swelling capacity, biodegradability and cost-effectiveness. Finally, the advanced biomedical applications of these hydrogels in areas such as drug delivery, wound dressings and tissue engineering are presented in detail.

Indexed as

biomedical applicationscellulosecrosslinkinghemicellulosehydrogelspropertiesstructure

Identifiers

PMID41150301
PMCPMC12566622

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.