ArticlePloS one2025
Patient and guardian perspectives on tissue engineering in microtia reconstruction.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTissue Engineering (TE) is a newer technology with ongoing development across various areas of healthcare. For microtia patients, TE holds promise as a viable option for ear reconstruction, making it essential to understand the perspectives of patients and guardians. This study aimed to evaluate the perspectives of microtia patients and guardians, specifically investigating levels of awareness, comprehension, and interest in TE.
methodsA survey and educational material were distributed to microtia patients and guardians. Surveyors were assessed on a Likert scale, and comparative analyses, including two-sample t-testing and multivariate analysis with logistic regression, were used to observe trends in responses.
resultsA total of 40 surveys were recorded. White patients reported greater familiarity with TE. More than half of the respondents expressed an interest in TE as a reconstructive option. Having a doctor provide TE information positively correlated with willingness to adopt TE reconstruction. Understanding of TE positively correlated with willingness to pursue TE for reconstruction. Patients with more severe grade microtia and white patients were more likely to travel to a hospital that offered TE.
conclusionsWe found that TE is an unfamiliar concept for most patients. Demographic, socioeconomic, cost, and trust in a doctor played an essential role in patients' and guardians' willingness to choose TE for microtia reconstruction. As TE for reconstruction approaches clinical use, these key considerations from a patient and family-centered lens about TE-based reconstruction is critical for application.
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.