ReviewAPL bioengineering2026
Biobased adhesive hydrogels for wound management and tissue repair: From materials to advanced applications.
Review in APL bioengineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomedical Hydrogels Based on Oxidized Hyaluronic Acid and Carboxymethyl Chitosan Coordinated with Magnesium Ions.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Aptamer-Directed Porous DNA Nanocomposite Hydrogel for Active Pulp Preservation: Immunomodulation, Stem Cell Recruitment and Reparative Dentinogenesis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Modeling Release Scaffolds for Spinal Cord Tissue Regeneration After Injury Using COMSOL Simulation.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Crosslinking-Dependent Design of Hyaluronic Acid Matrices for Enhanced Bioadhesion and Cellular Response.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Cutting-Edge Smart Hydrogel Platforms for Improved Wound Healing.Pharmaceutics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective tissue adhesion under wet and dynamic physiological conditions remains a major challenge in wound management and tissue repair. Conventional tissue adhesives often suffer from limited biocompatibility, inadequate wet adhesion, or lack of degradability, restricting their broader clinical use. In recent years, biobased adhesive hydrogels have emerged as promising alternatives owing to their intrinsic biocompatibility, tunable mechanical properties, and capability to achieve robust adhesion in complex biological environments. In addition to being passive sealants, recent developments have made these materials smartly responsive to various stimuli (pH, temperature, light, magnetic field, ultrasound), achieving multifunctional and on-demand treatment performance. This review summarizes recent advances in biobased adhesive hydrogels, with emphasis on material design strategies, interfacial adhesion mechanisms, evaluation methodologies, and representative biomedical applications. Particular attention is given to how biobased materials address the challenges of wet-tissue adhesion, mechanical mismatch, and dynamic tissue interfaces. Finally, current limitations and future development directions are discussed, including translational challenges, minimally invasive applications, and the integration of multifunctionality with clinical practicality. This review aims to provide guidance for the rational design and clinical translation of next-generation biobased adhesive hydrogels.
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.