SynthesisAdvanced healthcare materials2026
Standardized Effect Measures Informing Next-Generation Strategies for Mechanical Stimulation in Cartilage Tissue Engineering.
Synthesis in Advanced healthcare materials, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dynamic mechanical stimulation provides cues essential to mechanoadaptation, influencing extracellular matrix composition and functional properties. Cartilage tissue engineering implements a wide spectrum of stimulation modalities and loading parameters, yet the absence of standardization hinders direct comparison and limits investigation of optimal mechanical stimulation protocols. This systematic review summarizes published parameters of mechanical stimulation and applies standardized effect measures to compare their efficacy on matrix production in tissue-engineered cartilage. A total of 95 in vitro studies were included, covering six stimulation modalities (compression, tension, shear, hydrostatic pressure, fluid-induced shear, and combined stimuli) and chondrogenic outcomes (aggrecan and collagen II gene expression, glycosaminoglycan and collagen deposition, and compressive equilibrium modulus). The combined application of compression and shear was most effective, suggesting that complex loading patterns are potentially more beneficial for optimal cartilage mechanoadaptation. Loading dynamics and magnitude correlated with chondrogenic outcomes in meta-regression analysis, particularly for fluid-induced shear, which exhibited decreasing effects at higher intensities. Standardized effect measures enabled cross-study comparison despite wide methodological variability. A comprehensive in vitro comparison under rigorously controlled culture conditions, with precise understanding of sub-tissue mechanical stimuli, is essential for improving research reproducibility, optimizing mechanical microenvironments, and guiding bioreactor design for enhanced cartilage matrix development.
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.