Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Trends in Scientific Reports on Cartilage Bioprinting: Scoping Review

Salvador Vergés À., Yildirim M., Salvador B., Garcia Cuyas F.

Laboratory Study on Cartilage Damage, published in JMIR Form Res (2019) — 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
Laboratory Study
Journal
JMIR Form Res (2019)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
31464195
PMCID
PMC6737890
DOI
10.2196/15017
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Background Satisfactory therapeutic strategies for cartilaginous lesion repair do not yet exist. This creates a challenge for surgeons and biomedical engineers and leads them to investigate the role of bioprinting and tissue engineering as viable treatments through orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and otorhinolaryngology. Recent increases in related scientific literature suggest that bioprinted cartilage may develop into a viable solution. Objective The objectives of this review were to (1) synthesize the scientific advances published to date, (2) identify unresolved technical problems regarding human application, and (3) identify more effective ways for the scientific community to transfer their findings to clinicians. Methods This scoping review considered articles published between 2009 and 2019 that were identified through searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Arksey and O'Malley's five-step framework was used to delimit and direct the initial search results, from which we established the following research questions: (1) What do authors of current research say about human application? (2) What necessary technical improvements are identified in the research? (3) On which issues do the authors agree? and (4) What future research priorities emerge in the studies? We used the Cohen kappa statistic to validate the interrater reliability. Results The

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

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