Cardiovascular disease is currently the top global cause of death, however, research into new therapies is in decline. Tissue engineering is a solution to this crisis and in combination with the use of carbon nanotubes (CNTs), which have drawn recent attention as a biomaterial, could facilitate the development of more dynamic and complex in vitro models. CNTs' electrical conductivity and dimensional similarity to cardiac extracellular proteins provide a unique opportunity to deliver scaffolds with stimuli that mimic the native cardiac microenvironment in vitro more effectively. This systematic review aims to evaluate the use and efficacy of CNTs for cardiac tissue scaffolds and was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Papers resulting from these searches were then subjected to analysis against pre-determined inclusion and quality appraisal criteria. From 249 results, 27 manuscripts met the criteria and were included in this review. Neonatal rat cardiomyocytes were most commonly used in the experiments, with multi-walled CNTs being most common in tissue scaffolds. Immunofluorescence was the experimental technique most frequently used, which was employed for the staining of cardiac-specific proteins relating to contractile and electrophysiological function.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2023.
All research outputs
#22,699,304
of 27,790,740 outputs
Outputs from Bioengineering
#1,320
of 1,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#353,989
of 466,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioengineering
#27
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,790,740 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,920 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 466,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
