Global trends in clinical trials involving engineered biomaterials
Lele M., Kapur S., Hargett S., Sureshbabu NM., Gaharwar AK.
Clinical Trial with a reported sample of 100, published in Sci Adv (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- 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
- Clinical Trial
- Journal
- Sci Adv (2024)
- Reported sample size
- 100
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39018412
- PMCID
- PMC466960
- DOI
- 10.1126/sciadv.abq0997
- Citations
- 29
Abstract (original English)
Engineered biomaterials are materials specifically designed to interact with biological systems for biomedical applications. This paper offers the comprehensive analysis of global clinical trial trends involving such materials. We surveyed 834 studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database and explored biomaterial types, their initiation points, and durations in clinical trials. Predominantly, synthetic and natural polymers, particularly silicone and collagen, are used. Trials, focusing on ophthalmology, dentistry, and vascular medicine, are primarily conducted in the United States, Canada, and Italy. These trials encompass a broad demographic, and trials enrolled fewer than 100 participants. The study duration varied ranging from 0.5 to 4.5 years. These biomaterials are mainly bioresorbable or bioinert, with the integration of cells in biomaterials remaining an underexplored area. Our findings shed light on current practices and future potentials of engineered biomaterials in clinical research, offering insights for advancing this dynamic field globally.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.