ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Co-Culture Approaches in Cartilage and Bone Tissue Regeneration.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances and Challenges in 3D Bioprinting of Cartilage Organoids: From Material Innovation to Functional Regeneration.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- 3D-bioprinting for joint regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cartilage and bone defects as well as osteoarthritis are prevalent worldwide, affecting individuals across all age groups, from young, active populations to older adults. The standard protocol in cartilage regeneration involves knee replacement surgery through the implantation of an endoprosthesis. Current clinical protocols involving cell-based therapies are associated with limitations, including the lack of functional cartilage-like tissue and dedifferentiation of chondrocyte, particularly during monoculture. Similarly, in bone regeneration, the "gold standard" is the use of bone auto- or allografts, which are associated with immunological rejection, inadequate vascularization, and limited osteogenesis. To overcome these limitations, various co-culture techniques have been introduced as promising strategies for cartilage and bone tissue regeneration. These systems aim to mimic native microenvironments by promoting interactions between chondrocytes and mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) in cartilage repair and between osteogenic and angiogenic cells in bone regeneration. This paper introduces different co-culture systems focusing on in vitro crosstalk between MSCs derived from various sources and other somatic cell populations in cartilage and bone regeneration.
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.