ReviewJournal of materials chemistry. B2026
Evaluating and improving biocompatibility of conductive polymers for cardiac tissue engineering.
Review in Journal of materials chemistry. B, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifunctional Hydrogel-Based Scaffolds: Integrating Conductive Nanomaterials for Smart Wound Healing Applications.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bone Tissue Engineering: Scaffold Design Principles, Biomaterial Advances, and Strategies for Functional Regeneration and Clinical Translation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mechanisms and Applications of Conductive Biomaterials in Spinal Cord Injury Repair.Biomaterials research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conductive polymers (CPs) have gained increasing attention in cardiac tissue engineering (CTE) due to their ability to restore electrical conductivity, enhance cardiomyocyte (CM) function, and support tissue regeneration. Despite significant progress in the field, challenges related to variability in biocompatibility testing, including dopant-dependent cytotoxicity, poor reporting of biodegradability, unpredictable long-term stability, and regulatory uncertainty of CPs continue to hinder their applications. To address this, we reviewed the properties, applications, and biocompatibility of the three most studied CPs: polypyrrole (PPy), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), and polyaniline (PANI) in CTE, and contrast their advantages and safety challenges with inorganic electrodes and carbon-based materials. We critically assessed current methods for evaluating the biocompatibility of CPs, highlighting limitations in traditional
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.