ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Comparative Effects of Cellulose- and Gelatin-Based Hemostatic Biomaterials on the Early Stage of Wound Healing-An In Vivo Study.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Late Effects of Hemostatic Biomaterials on Wound Healing at 14 and 30 Days: An In Vivo Animal Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Preclinical Performance Evaluation of an Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose Hemostat: Antibacterial Activity and Wound Healing Outcomes.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Hemostatic biomaterials are widely used in surgical and trauma settings, yet their influence on early wound healing remains incompletely understood. This in vivo study investigated the effects of cellulose- and gelatin-based hemostatic biomaterials on early wound healing using a murine skin wound model. Oxidized non-regenerated cellulose (ONRC), oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC), and a porcine gelatin-based matrix (GELA) were left in situ following standardized subcutaneous implantation and compared with sham-treated controls. Tissue responses were analyzed at postoperative days 3 and 7 using histology, immunohistochemistry, and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Cellulose-based materials persisted as eosinophilic remnants, whereas fibrous matrix structures and enhanced extracellular matrix deposition were observed in the GELA group. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased cluster of differentiation 68 (CD68)-positive macrophage presence in the ORC group at day 3 and in the GELA group at day 7, indicating biomaterial-dependent modulation of macrophage involvement during early wound healing. Expression of Kiel 67 (Ki-67), a marker of cellular proliferation, was significantly elevated in the epidermis of the GELA group at day 7, suggesting enhanced proliferative activity during the reparative phase. In contrast, no significant differences were detected in the expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), or cluster of differentiation 14 (CD14) between groups. Overall, none of the investigated biomaterials impaired early wound healing, while the gelatin-based material demonstrated features consistent with enhanced reparative cellular responses without excessive inflammation.
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.