ReviewMicromachines2021
Cancer Cell Direct Bioprinting: A Focused Review.
Review in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D Bioprinting and Microfluidic-based Devices for Cancer Detection and Drug Treatment: Focus on Prostate Cancer.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Evaluating cells metabolic activity of bioinks for bioprinting: the role of cell-laden hydrogels and 3D printing on cell survival.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Recent advances in 3D bioprinted tumor models for personalized medicine.Translational oncology · 2023Article
- The Variety of 3D Breast Cancer Models for the Study of Tumor Physiology and Drug Screening.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Chitosan-Based Biomaterials: Insights into Chemistry, Properties, Devices, and Their Biomedical Applications.Marine drugs · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional printing technologies allow for the fabrication of complex parts with accurate geometry and less production time. When applied to biomedical applications, two different approaches, known as direct or indirect bioprinting, may be performed. The classical way is to print a support structure, the scaffold, and then culture the cells. Due to the low efficiency of this method, direct bioprinting has been proposed, with or without the use of scaffolds. Scaffolds are the most common technology to culture cells, but bioassembly of cells may be an interesting methodology to mimic the native microenvironment, the extracellular matrix, where the cells interact between themselves. The purpose of this review is to give an updated report about the materials, the bioprinting technologies, and the cells used in cancer research for breast, brain, lung, liver, reproductive, gastric, skin, and bladder associated cancers, to help the development of possible treatments to lower the mortality rates, increasing the effectiveness of guided therapies. This work introduces direct bioprinting to be considered as a key factor above the main tissue engineering technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.