SynthesisPloS one2026
Advanced microfluidic and 3D cell culture platforms for modeling vascularization in diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review of translational challenges and perspectives.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The healing process of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) presents a slow pattern with an increased risk of infections, ischemia, and thrombosis correlated with high levels of reactive oxygen species production. Vascular injury is one of the factors contributing to the difficulty of wound healing in diabetic patients. Although the understanding of the pathophysiology of DFUs has significantly increased in recent years, associated treatments still have a high level of failure, leading to high morbidity rates, mortality, and amputations. Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture platforms offer a new approach to investigating and treating these wounds, as they can reproduce one or more physiological systems in a relevant microenvironment. This systematic review describes the advancements, challenges, and future implications of advanced 3D culture models in vascularization, encompassing pathophysiological understanding, treatment, and prognostic perspectives. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This work was registered under PROSPERO protocol number CRD42022336473. The eligibility criteria addressed studies related to chronic DFUs that analyzed vascularization during the healing process. The selected study designs involved 3D cultures and organ-on-a- chip (OoC) platforms, utilizing either primary or secondary human cell lines. Studies published more than 10 years ago or using only animal cells in 2D culture environments were excluded. The search was conducted in PubMed, LILACS, Embase, MEDLINE, IEEE, the BSV regional portal, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CINAHL, EBSCO, and Web of Science. A total of 2,539 relevant studies were identified as of June 1, 2025. After screening, only seven met the inclusion criteria. These studies reflect a growing interest in using hydrogel scaffolds and microfluidic systems to replicate diabetic skin environments; however, the field remains in an early stage of development. OoC platforms, in particular, stand out for their ability to recreate dynamic, tissue-like conditions and vascular function. While some promising attempts have been made to combine hydrogels with these technologies, the evidence is still limited and inconclusive for chronic wound modeling. This review underscores both the potential and the urgent need for more robust and translational research in this area-especially toward building personalized, clinically relevant models to support future drug testing and therapeutic innovation.
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.