ReviewiScience2026
Recent advances in medical hemostatic materials: Mechanisms, evaluation, and clinical perspectives.
Review in iScience, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uncontrolled hemorrhage remains a major cause of preventable death in trauma and surgery, yet the performance of hemostatic materials varies markedly with wound geometry, blood flow, coagulation status, and tissue sensitivity. This review critically examines natural polymer-based, synthetic polymer-based, inorganic, and composite hemostats by linking material structure to six principal mechanisms: fluid absorption and surface adsorption, coagulation activation, bioactive-factor delivery, photothermal assistance, adhesive sealing, and microstructural regulation. Beyond cataloging materials, we compare class-specific advantages, failure modes, and safety constraints, and analyze how hemodilution, hypothermia, acidosis, anticoagulation, infection, and high-flow bleeding reshape material performance. We further integrate clinically used products, scenario-based material selection, and a staged evaluation framework spanning mechanistic assays, hostile-condition testing, translational bleeding models, rebleeding assessment, and post-hemostasis safety. Finally, we outline stage-matched pathways for responsive and multifunctional systems. This mechanism-scenario-evaluation framework supports more rigorous design, comparison, and clinical translation of next-generation hemostatic materials.
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.