SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Establishment and translational evaluation of animal models for skin wound healing: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation smart polymeric hydrogels for chronic wound management: integrating antimicrobial, immunomodulatory and regenerative strategies.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Review
- Preclinical Efficacy of Recombinant Human Platelet-Derived Growth Factor-BB in Experimental Diabetic Wound Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hydrogels in the Management of Peripheral Venous Disease: Bridging Material Design and Clinical Evidence.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Programming Hydrogel Release Kinetics to Tissue Healing Phases: From Network Design to Therapeutic Synchronization.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Antimicrobial Peptides and Smart Biomaterials in Chronic Wound Therapy: Overcoming Biofilms, Resistance, and Translational Barriers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Current therapeutic strategies and available research models for investigating hypertrophic scars.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Human relevant platforms for cutaneous wound healing research: current landscape, translational gaps, and emerging frontiers.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Skin wounds, encompassing acute injuries and chronic refractory ulcers, impose substantial physical and economic burdens globally. While animal models are indispensable for dissecting wound healing pathophysiology and testing therapeutic interventions, the discordance between preclinical findings and clinical outcomes remains a critical challenge. Methods: To provide a standardized reference for model selection, we conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2025. Inclusion criteria focused on Results: A total of 129 studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized. We systematically categorized and evaluated mainstream models: (1) Acute wounds: Rodent incisional/excisional models facilitate high-throughput screening but are limited by contraction-dominant healing, whereas rabbit ear models better approximate human re-epithelialization. (2) Chronic wounds: Streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic models in mice and rats predominate but often lack the macrovascular complications of human ulcers, necessitating novel composite models incorporating ischemia and biofilm infection. (3) Pathological scarring: Tension-induced models (e.g., suture anchoring, mechanical stretching) are identified as critical for studying mechanotransduction pathways (e.g., YAP/TAZ) absent in traditional unstressed models. Furthermore, our review identifies a pervasive male bias in study design. We highlight that sex steroids critically modulate inflammation and angiogenesis-with estrogen typically promoting and androgens delaying repair-necessitating the inclusion of both sexes or specific hormone-depleted models (e.g., ovariectomized females) to improve clinical predictive value. Conclusion: No single animal model perfectly recapitulates human cutaneous repair. Based on the synthesis of 129 studies, we propose a hierarchical translational framework: utilizing genetically tractable mice for mechanistic discovery, rats for longitudinal pharmacological screening, and rabbits or porcine models for the validation of scar quality and epithelial closure prior to clinical trials.
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.