ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Clinical Applications of Biophysical Stimuli Technologies for Bone Healing.
Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone healing is a complex physiological process modulated by coordinated biological and mechanical factors. Despite bone's inherent regenerative capabilities, approximately 5-10% of fractures experience delayed union or nonunion, often attributed to factors such as infection, mechanical instability, poor vascularization, or systemic conditions like diabetes and osteoporosis. Thus, targeted interventions are essential to counteract these disruptions and improve bone healing outcomes. This review examines the existing literature on biophysical stimuli technologies based on electrical, ultrasound, piezoelectric and vibrational stimulations, engineered to promote bone healing. Furthermore, a summary of the technologies and their mechanism of action is provided along with the clinical applications, advantages, limitations, and challenges associated with these emerging technologies. Overall, these biophysical stimuli technologies have the potential to be an effective adjunct to standard treatment approaches to accelerate healing. Among them, electrical stimulation and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound are the most clinically mature biophysical modalities with demonstrated efficacy in delayed union and nonunion fractures, whereas piezoelectric and vibrational technologies remain largely at the preclinical or early translational stage but show emerging potential for adjunctive bone healing therapies. However, translating findings from in vitro experiments and small animal models into successful clinical applications remains difficult. To advance clinical adoption of these biophysical stimuli technologies, future research should prioritize standardized input and output parameters, conduct direct comparisons using uniform metrics, and further explore the effects of combining these technologies. Studies must also evaluate cost, effectiveness, patient compliance, safety standards, and clearance requirements for medical device translation. Furthermore, technologies that require no or minimal changes to existing surgical techniques will further facilitate regulatory approval and surgeon adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886162What 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.