ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Natural Versus Synthetic Biodegradable Scaffolds in Soft Tissue Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodegradable scaffolds are widely used in soft tissue reconstruction to support tissue regeneration and reduce long-term complications, yet the comparative clinical effectiveness of natural and synthetic scaffolds remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes including recurrence rate, healing time, hospitalization duration, and complications. Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2015 and January 2026. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies involving human participants undergoing soft tissue reconstruction were included. Nine studies across multiple surgical fields were analyzed. Pooled results showed a significantly lower recurrence rate with natural scaffolds compared to synthetic scaffolds (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.73, p = 0.008), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Healing time did not differ significantly between groups (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.13, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.27, I² = 55%). Hospitalization time showed no significant difference but had high heterogeneity (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.57, I² = 89%). Complication rates favored natural scaffolds but were not statistically significant (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.45, I² = 60%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed stability of findings. Natural scaffolds reduce recurrence and show a favorable safety trend, while healing and hospitalization outcomes depend more on surgical context than scaffold type.
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.