ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2008
Stem cell myths.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long noncoding RNAs: new players in the molecular mechanism for maintenance and differentiation of pluripotent stem cells.Stem cells and development · 2013Review
- Motoneuron replacement for reinnervation of skeletal muscle in adult rats.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2012Article
- Stem cell therapies for spinal cord injury.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2010Review
- RNA: state memory and mediator of cellular phenotype.Trends in cell biology · 2010Article
- Adult neurogenesis in the crayfish brain: proliferation, migration, and possible origin of precursor cells.Developmental neurobiology · 2009Article
- The role of animal models in evaluating reasonable safety and efficacy for human trials of cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2009Review
- Introduction: stem cells and brain repair.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2008Review
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
Stem cells, although difficult to define, hold great promise as tools for understanding development and as therapeutic agents. However, as with any new field, uncritical enthusiasm can outstrip reality. In this review, we have listed nine common myths that we believe affect our approach to evaluating stem cells for therapy. We suggest that careful consideration needs to be given to each of these issues when evaluating a particular cell for its use in therapy. Data need to be collected and reported for failed as well as successful experiments and a rigorous scientific approach taken to evaluate the undeniable promise of stem cell biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.