Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19569457›Full record

ReviewThe journal of spinal cord medicine2009

Stem cell-based therapies for spinal cord injury.

Rishi S Nandoe Tewarie, Andres Hurtado, Ronald H Bartels, Andre Grotenhuis, Martin Oudega

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Glial cells in the mammalian olfactory bulb.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Rishi S Nandoe TewarieRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Department of Neurosurgery, The Netherlands. R.D.S.Nandoe@nch.umcn.nl
Andres Hurtado
Ronald H Bartels
Andre Grotenhuis
Martin Oudega

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) results in loss of nervous tissue and consequently loss of motor and sensory function. There is no treatment available that restores the injury-induced loss of function to a degree that an independent life can be guaranteed. Transplantation of stem cells or progenitors may support spinal cord repair. Stem cells are characterized by self-renewal and their ability to become any cell in an organism. Promising results have been obtained in experimental models of SCI. Stem cells can be directed to differentiate into neurons or glia in vitro, which can be used for replacement of neural cells lost after SCI. Neuroprotective and axon regeneration-promoting effects have also been credited to transplanted stem cells. There are still issues related to stem cell transplantation that need to be resolved, including ethical concerns. This paper reviews the current status of stem cell application for spinal cord repair.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell DifferentiationHumansSpinal Cord InjuriesStem CellsStem Cell Transplantation

Identifiers

PMID19569457
PMCPMC2678281

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.