ReviewHeliyon2024
Tissue engineering strategies for ocular regeneration; from bench to the bedside.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extrinsic Regulation of Optic Nerve Axon Regeneration in the Adult Central Nervous System.Cells · 2026Review
- Advances and Challenges in Tissue Engineering: Biomaterials, Cellular Strategies, and Clinical Applications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Functional scaffolds design strategies for retinal repair and regeneration.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Risk of Permanent Corneal Injury in Microgravity: Spaceflight-Associated Hazards, Challenges to Vision Restoration, and Role of Biotechnology in Long-Term Planetary Missions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Millions globally suffer from visual impairment, complicating the management of eye diseases due to various ocular barriers. The eye's complex structure and the limitations of existing treatments have spurred interest in tissue engineering (TE) as a solution. This approach offers new functionalities and improves therapeutic outcomes over traditional drug delivery methods, creating opportunities for treating various eye disorders, from corneal injuries to retinal degeneration. In our review of recent articles concerning the use of scaffolds for eye repair, we categorized scaffolds employed in eye TE from recent studies into four types based on tissue characteristics: natural, synthetic, biohybrid, and decellularized tissue. Additionally, we gathered data on the cell types and animal models associated with each scaffold. This allowed us to gather valuable insights into the benefits and drawbacks of each material. Our research elucidates that, in comparison to conventional treatment modalities, scaffolds in TE emulate the extracellular matrix (ECM) of the eye and facilitate cell proliferation and tissue regeneration. These scaffolds can be precisely tailored to incorporate growth factors that augment the healing process while also providing considerable advantages such as bacterial inhibition, biocompatibility, and enhanced durability. However, they also have drawbacks, such as potential immune responses, poor tissue integration, complex and costly manufacturing, and inconsistent degradation rates that can affect their effectiveness. In this review, we provide an overview of the present condition of eye regenerative treatments, assess notable preclinical and clinical research endeavors, contemplate the obstacles encountered, and speculate on potential advancements in the upcoming decade.
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.