Evidence mapPaperPMID 40547419Full record

ReviewRegenerative therapy2025

Cell macroencapsulation devices in contemporary research: A systematic review.

Murillo D L Bernardi, Natascha Rus, Robin W M Vernooij, Marianne C Verhaar, Maarten B Rookmaaker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regenerative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Murillo D L BernardiUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Nephrology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Natascha RusIndependent Researcher, the Netherlands.
Robin W M VernooijUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Nephrology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marianne C VerhaarUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Nephrology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maarten B RookmaakerUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Nephrology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell macroencapsulation devices (CMDs) represent a promising therapeutic approach by combining controlled, off-the-shelf technology with living tissue functionality. Despite their potential, the current knowledge about CMD development and implementation remains fragmented across different applications. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the available evidence on implantable CMDs and establish a comprehensive framework for their development. Our analysis cataloged studies based on device materials and design, cell types, implantation strategies, and evaluation methods. The review revealed that CMD development has largely progressed in application-specific silos, with varying approaches to device characterization, cell selection (from xenogeneic to autologous), and assessment methods. Key evaluation parameters included cell survival and functionality, host tissue response (inflammation, vascularization, and fibrosis), and therapeutic efficacy. While successful implementations exist across multiple applications, the lack of standardized development and evaluation protocols emerges as a significant barrier to cross-application advancement. These findings highlight the need for unified assessment frameworks to accelerate CMD development across therapeutic applications.

Indexed as

BioencapsulationBiomedical devicesCell encapsulationImplantationTherapeutic delivery

Identifiers

PMID40547419
PMCPMC12180967

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.