ReviewCureus2025
Biomaterial-Based Hemostasis: A Review of the Clinical and Functional Versatility of Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose for Hemostasis in Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Preclinical Performance Evaluation of an Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose Hemostat: Antibacterial Activity and Wound Healing Outcomes.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Biomaterial strategies for precision regeneration of the tooth extraction socket: integrating site phenotype, pathological microenvironment, and healing sequence.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose (ORC) is a widely used polysaccharide-based hemostatic agent known for its biocompatibility, absorbability, antibacterial properties, and ease of application. It has been employed across a broad range of surgical specialties as an adjunctive tool for controlling mild to moderate bleeding, reducing postoperative adhesions, and minimizing infection risks. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, functional versatility, and future potential of ORC across diverse surgical applications, with a focus on its comparative performance against other topical hemostatic agents. A systematic search of PubMed Central and clinicaltrials.gov database was conducted, including filters for only clinical trials, controlled trials, and randomized controlled trials involving human subjects. A total of 31 studies (28 from PubMed Central and three from clinicaltrials.gov) met the inclusion criteria, encompassing various surgical disciplines. Data were extracted on clinical indication, comparator agents, outcomes, and adverse events. ORC demonstrated consistent efficacy in controlling intraoperative bleeding, particularly in orthopedic, general, and gynecologic surgeries. It reduced total blood loss and postoperative drainage in specific contexts, though its hemostatic effect was less pronounced than fibrin-based sealants in high-pressure bleeding scenarios. It also contributed to adhesion prevention, particularly in pelvic and abdominal surgeries, and showed antibacterial activity against multidrug-resistant organisms. Adverse events were rare and typically unrelated to the material itself. In conclusion, ORC is a versatile, cost-effective hemostatic agent valued for its ease of use, rapid absorption, and intrinsic bactericidal properties. While newer, specialized agents may excel in specific high-risk scenarios, it remains a clinically indispensable option due to its balanced efficacy and safety profile, particularly in resource-limited settings. Further high-quality studies are warranted to solidify its evidence base across diverse surgical 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.