Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Hydrogel Microspheres for Biomedical Applications

Huang Y., Zhu X., Zhou J., Li H., Zhang W., Shen D.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Small Sci (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Narrative Review
Journal
Small Sci (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41613254
PMCID
PMC12850241
DOI
10.1002/smsc.202500453
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

With the advancement of hydrogel technology, increasing attention has been drawn to hydrogel microspheres (HMs) due to their versatile biomedical applications. HMs play pivotal roles in biomedical applications, such as drug delivery, cell culture, regenerative medicine, wound healing, and tumor immunity. Composed of diverse biobased materials and fabricated through various preparation methods, HMs offer unique structural and functional advantages. This review focuses on the latest findings to provide a more comprehensive understanding of HMs for biomedical applications. Their therapeutic potential across multiple disease contexts is highlighted, and emerging trends and challenges are discussed. By consolidating current knowledge, this work aims to inspire further research and accelerate the clinical translation of HMs.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research