Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18181943›Full record

ReviewCell proliferation2008

Potential for access to embryonic-like cells from human umbilical cord blood.

C P McGuckin, N Forraz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell proliferation, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Regenerative therapies for diabetic microangiopathy.Experimental diabetes research · 2012
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Promising new sources for pluripotent stem cells.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2010
    Review
  18. Future of cord blood for non-oncology uses.Bone marrow transplantation · 2009
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Stem cell platforms for regenerative medicine.Clinical and translational science · 2009
    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

2 authors.

C P McGuckinNewcastle Centre for Cord Blood, Stem Cell Institute, Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. c.mcguckin@newcastle.ac.uk
N Forraz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All too often media attention clouds the reality that there are many types of stem cell. The embryos, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood (UCB) are the three most used sources. However, despite what it would appear, embryonic stem cells have not been the first to yield life-saving cures at present. Faster routes to clinical intervention have been using adult stem cells that can be sourced from bone marrow and from cord blood, and that are readily accessible and are more ethically acceptable to the general public. Both these non-embryonic sources have been able to provide sufficient numbers of cells to allow development of clinical translational protocols. Bone marrow-derived cells have been used successfully in myocardial infarct therapy where relining by endothelial tissue has allowed limited reperfusion to damaged cardiac tissue. UCB have also demonstrated significant success for around 20 years in haematotransplantation. With a global human population in excess of 6 billion, births thus UCB, remain the largest untouched source of stem cells available every year. UCB also provide a distinct advantage over other adult stem cells due to the length of the telomere and also due protected immunological status of the developing neonatal environment. The total mutation load in the UCB populations is clearly likely to be significant less than in adult tissues.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone Marrow CellsEmbryonic Stem CellsFetal BloodHumansLiverTissue Engineering

Identifiers

PMID18181943
PMCPMC6495907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.