Evaluating Bioassays for the Determination of Simvastatin's Osteogenic Activity: A Systematic Review
Back LS., Manso IS., Sordi MB., Magrin GL., Aragonês Á., Magini RS.
Systematic Review, published in J Funct Biomater (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- J Funct Biomater (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39997596
- PMCID
- PMC11855937
- DOI
- 10.3390/jfb16020061
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
Objective Osteogenic differentiation is a complex process, and its analysis requires several biomarkers. Allied with this, there are no standardized bioassays to monitor the activity of simvastatin in osteogenesis in vitro. Therefore, identifying the most efficient and sensitive bioassays may enhance the quality of in vitro studies, bridging the gap with in vivo findings, saving time and resources, and benefiting the community. This systematic review aimed to determine the most efficient bioassay for simvastatin's osteogenic activity in vitro, in terms of sensitivity. Materials and methods In vitro studies evaluating undifferentiated mesenchymal cells treated with simvastatin were considered eligible. References were selected in a two-phase process. Electronic databases and the grey literature were screened up to September 2023. The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Certainty in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data were analyzed considering extracellular matrix mineralization, alkaline phosphatase, and the expression of potential target genes, such as bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2), collagen type I, Runt-related transcription factor 2, osterix, osteocalcin, and osteopontin. Results Fourteen studies were included. A "p
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.