Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39600888›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Optimizing scaffold pore size for tissue engineering: insights across various tissue types.

Fariza Mukasheva, Laura Adilova, Aibek Dyussenbinov, Bota Yernaimanova, Madi Abilev, Dana Akilbekova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

130 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. ACS omega · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Fariza MukashevaDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Laura AdilovaDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Aibek DyussenbinovDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Bota YernaimanovaDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.
Madi AbilevDepartment of Analytical, Colloid Chemistry and Technology of Rare Elements, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Dana AkilbekovaDepartment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scaffold porosity is a critical factor in replicating the complex

Indexed as

bone tissuecardiovascular tissuelung tissuepore sizeporosityscaffoldsskin tissuetissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID39600888
PMCPMC11588461

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.