Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18181951›Full record

ReviewCell proliferation2008

Stem cells and neurological diseases.

D C Hess, C V Borlongan

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 225 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D C HessDepartment of Neurology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912, USA. dhess@mail.mcg.edu
C V Borlongan
Augusta University · USTogus VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cells of the central nervous system were once thought to be incapable of regeneration. This dogma has been challenged in the last decade with studies showing new, migrating stem cells in the brain in many rodent injury models and findings of new neurones in the human hippocampus in adults. Moreover, there are reports of bone marrow-derived cells developing neuronal and vascular phenotypes and aiding in repair of injured brain. These findings have fuelled excitement and interest in regenerative medicine for neurological diseases, arguably the most difficult diseases to treat. There are numerous proposed regenerative approaches to neurological diseases. These include cell therapy approaches in which cells are delivered intracerebrally or are infused by an intravenous or intra-arterial route; stem cell mobilization approaches in which endogenous stem and progenitor cells are mobilized by cytokines such as granulocyte colony stimulatory factor (GCSF) or chemokines such as SDF-1; trophic and growth factor support, such as delivering brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) or glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) into the brain to support injured neurones; these approaches may be used together to maximize recovery. While initially, it was thought that cell therapy might work by a 'cell replacement' mechanism, a large body of evidence is emerging that cell therapy works by providing trophic or 'chaperone' support to the injured tissue and brain. Angiogenesis and neurogenesis are coupled in the brain. Increasing angiogenesis with adult stem cell approaches in rodent models of stroke leads to preservation of neurones and improved functional outcome. A number of stem and progenitor cell types has been proposed as therapy for neurological disease ranging from neural stem cells to bone marrow derived stem cells to embryonic stem cells. Any cell therapy approach to neurological disease will have to be scalable and easily commercialized if it will have the necessary impact on public health. Currently, bone marrow-derived cell populations such as the marrow stromal cell, multipotential progenitor cells, umbilical cord stem cells and neural stem cells meet these criteria the best. Of great clinical significance, initial evidence suggests these cell types may be delivered by an allogeneic approach, so strict tissue matching may not be necessary. The most immediate impact on patients will be achieved by making use of the trophic support capability of cell therapy and not by a cell replacement mechanism.

Indexed as

Adult Stem CellsBone Marrow TransplantationBrainCell DifferentiationCentral Nervous System DiseasesHumansMetabolism, Inborn ErrorsMultiple SclerosisParkinson DiseaseStem CellsStem Cell TransplantationStroke

Identifiers

PMID18181951
PMCPMC6496373
OpenAlexW1505870579

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.