Evidence mapPaperPMID 38558773Full record

ArticleMaterials today. Bio2024

3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality.

Ahmed S M Ali, Dongwei Wu, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Diyal Dhamrait, Johanna Berg, Beatrice Tolksdorf, Dajana Lichtenstein, Corinna Dressler, Albert Braeuning, Jens Kurreck and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Materials today. Bio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Lessons Learned from Liver-on-Chip Platform.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ahmed S M AliDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany.
Dongwei WuDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany.
Alexandra Bannach-BrownBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) @Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Germany.
Diyal DhamraitBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) @Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Germany.
Johanna BergDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany.
Beatrice TolksdorfDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany.
Dajana LichtensteinGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department Food Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Corinna DresslerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Medical Library, Germany.
Albert BraeuningGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department Food Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Jens KurreckDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany.
Maren HülsemannBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) @Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Germany.
Technische Universität Berlin · DEBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEFederal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective communication is crucial for broad acceptance and applicability of alternative methods in 3R biomedical research and preclinical testing. 3D bioprinting is used to construct intricate biological structures towards functional liver models, specifically engineered for deployment as alternative models in drug screening, toxicological investigations, and tissue engineering. Despite a growing number of reviews in this emerging field, a comprehensive study, systematically assessing practices and reporting quality for bioprinted liver models is missing. Methods: In this systematic scoping review we systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and BioRxiv for studies published prior to June 2 Results: Through our systematic database search we identified 1042 records, from which 63 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this systematic scoping review. Our findings revealed that extrusion-based printing, in conjunction with bioinks composed of natural components, emerged as the predominant printing technique in the bioprinting of liver models. Notably, the HepG2 hepatoma cell line was the most frequently employed liver cell type, despite acknowledged limitations. Furthermore, 51% of the printed models featured co-cultures with non-parenchymal cells to enhance their complexity. The included studies offered a variety of techniques for characterizing these liver models, with their primary application predominantly focused on toxicity testing. Among the frequently analyzed liver markers, albumin and urea stood out. Additionally, Cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms, primarily CYP3A and CYP1A, were assessed, and select studies employed nuclear receptor agonists to induce CYP activity. Conclusion: Our systematic scoping review offers an evidence-based overview and evaluation of the current state of research on bioprinted liver models, representing a promising and innovative technology for creating alternative organ models. We conducted a thorough examination of both the methodological and technical facets of model development and scrutinized the reporting quality within the realm of bioprinted liver models. This systematic scoping review can serve as a valuable template for systematically evaluating the progress of organ model development in various other domains. The transparently derived evidence presented here can provide essential support to the research community, facilitating the adaptation of technological advancements, the establishment of standards, and the enhancement of model robustness. This is particularly crucial as we work toward the long-term objective of establishing new approach methods as reliable alternatives to animal testing, with extensive and versatile applications.

Indexed as

3D bioprinting3RBioinkHepatocytesHepG2Xeno-free

Identifiers

PMID38558773
PMCPMC10978534
OpenAlexW4391848975

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.