ArticleMaterials today. Bio2024
3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automation of 3D liver spheroid generation and acetaminophen dose-response on the MO:BOT enhances assay robustness and precision.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fabricating transplantable, vascularized, and cholangiogenic bioartificial livers via three-dimensional bioprinting: a promising therapeutic strategy for liver failure.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Advances in 3D Bioprinting: Materials, Processes, and Emerging Applications.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Integration of multi-modal monitoring for dynamic control of large-scale 3D tissue bioreactors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Liver regeneration: unraveling the molecular mechanisms and clinical application.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Organ-Specific Strategies in Bioprinting: Addressing Translational Challenges in the Heart, Liver, Kidney, and Pancreas.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Converging Architectures: Precision Biomanufacturing and Soft Robotics Rewiring Tissue Engineering.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Lessons Learned from Liver-on-Chip Platform.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Recent Advances in Three-Dimensional In Vitro Models for Studies of Liver Fibrosis.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025Review
- Getting Blood out of a Stone: Vascularization via Spheroids and Organoids in 3D Bioprinting.Cells · 2025Review
- 3D bioprinting for the construction of drug testing models-development strategies and regulatory concerns.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Promoting ethical and reproducible cell culture: implementing animal-free alternatives to teaching in molecular and cell biology.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- Synergistic potentials of small extracellular vesicles, biomaterials, and 3D bioprinting in periodontal regeneration: a scoping review.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2025Review
- Article
- Taking the 3Rs to a higher level: replacement and reduction of animal testing in life sciences in space research.Biotechnology advancesReview
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.