ReviewJPRAS open2026
Molecular modulation of cartilage graft survival: a systematic review and translational synthesis of local and systemic strategies.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
Background: Cartilage grafting is widely used in reconstructive and aesthetic surgery, but graft resorption, volume loss, reduced chondrocyte viability, and variable graft-host integration remain important limitations. This review evaluated preclinical evidence for technical graft-preparation strategies and local or systemic biologic approaches intended to improve cartilage graft survival. Methods: A systematic review of preclinical in vivo evidence was reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched between April 1 and May 1, 2026, with a publication cutoff of March 31, 2026. Direct graft-specific comparative studies, including technical preparation/interface strategies and biologically active interventions, were distinguished from broader contextual publications. Because of heterogeneity in models, strategies, follow-up, and outcomes, meta-analysis and inferential comparisons were not performed. Findings were synthesized narratively, and risk of bias in direct animal studies was assessed using SYRCLE's tool. Results: Thirty-three publications informed the review: 14 direct graft-specific studies, 5 technical or clinical contextual publications, and 14 indirect mechanistic publications. Direct evidence was predominantly derived from rabbit models and included technical graft-preparation/interface comparisons and locally delivered biologic interventions such as platelet-derived products, fibrin-based materials, and perichondrial support. Several studies reported favorable graft-related findings, but benefits could not be compared reliably across strategy categories. No direct graft-specific systemic intervention study was identified; the systemic rationale was supported by indirect literature on oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, extracellular matrix biology, and tissue repair. Methodological reporting was variable, with several risk-of-bias domains remaining unclear. Conclusion: Several technical graft-preparation approaches and local biologic strategies have shown promising findings in preclinical cartilage graft models. However, substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations preclude conclusions regarding comparative superiority or routine clinical efficacy. Systemic and combined strategies remain investigational, and the proposed framework is hypothesis-generating pending standardized preclinical studies and prospective clinical validation.
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.