Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34422780›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021

Towards the Experimentally-Informed

Esther Reina-Romo, Sourav Mandal, Paulo Amorim, Veerle Bloemen, Eleonora Ferraris, Liesbet Geris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Extrusion bioprinting: meeting the promise of human tissue biofabrication?Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Esther Reina-RomoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Manufacturing, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Sourav MandalBiomechanics Research Unit, GIGA In Silico Medicine, Université de Liège, Liege, Belgium.
Paulo AmorimPrometheus, The Division of Skeletal Tissue Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Veerle BloemenPrometheus, The Division of Skeletal Tissue Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Eleonora FerrarisDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Campus de Nayer, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Liesbet GerisBiomechanics Research Unit, GIGA In Silico Medicine, Université de Liège, Liege, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research in bioprinting is booming due to its potential in addressing several manufacturing challenges in regenerative medicine. However, there are still many hurdles to overcome to guarantee cell survival and good printability. For the 3D extrusion-based bioprinting, cell viability is amongst one of the lowest of all the bioprinting techniques and is strongly influenced by various factors including the shear stress in the print nozzle. The goal of this study is to quantify, by means of

Indexed as

bioinkcell viabilitycomputational fluid dynamicscomputational modelingdesign of experiementsGaussian processmachine learningpower law fluid model

Identifiers

PMID34422780
PMCPMC8378215

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.