ReviewNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Advancements in Assessments of Bio-Tissue Engineering and Viable Cell Delivery Matrices Using Bile Acid-Based Pharmacological Biotechnologies.
Review in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological Dose-Effect Profiles of Various Concentrations of Humanised Primary Bile Acid in Encapsulated Cells.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Biguanide Pharmaceutical Formulations and the Applications of Bile Acid-Based Nano Delivery in Chronic Medical Conditions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Artificial Cell Encapsulation for Biomaterials and Tissue Bio-Nanoengineering: History, Achievements, Limitations, and Future Work for Potential Clinical Applications and Transplantation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Review
- Article
- The Effects of Primary Unconjugated Bile Acids on Nanoencapsulated Pharmaceutical Formulation of Hydrophilic Drugs: Pharmacological Implications.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The utilisation of bioartificial organs is of significant interest to many due to their versatility in treating a wide range of disorders. Microencapsulation has a potentially significant role in such organs. In order to utilise microcapsules, accurate characterisation and analysis is required to assess their properties and suitability. Bioartificial organs or transplantable microdevices must also account for immunogenic considerations, which will be discussed in detail. One of the most characterized cases is the investigation into a bioartificial pancreas, including using microencapsulation of islets or other cells, and will be the focus subject of this review. Overall, this review will discuss the traditional and modern technologies which are necessary for the characterisation of properties for transplantable microdevices or organs, summarizing analysis of the microcapsule itself, cells and finally a working organ. Furthermore, immunogenic considerations of such organs are another important aspect which is addressed within this review. The various techniques, methodologies, advantages, and disadvantages will all be discussed. Hence, the purpose of this review is providing an updated examination of all processes for the analysis of a working, biocompatible artificial organ.
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.