Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19652969›Full record

ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2009

Cord blood--an alternative source for bone regeneration.

Marcus Jäger, Christoph Zilkens, Bernd Bittersohl, Rüdiger Krauspe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Mesenchymal Stem or Stromal Cells: Toward a Better Understanding of Their Biology?Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2010
    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

4 authors.

Marcus JägerDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heinrich-Heine University Medical School, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. Jaeger@med.uni-duesseldorf.de
Christoph Zilkens
Bernd Bittersohl
Rüdiger Krauspe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone regeneration is one of the best investigated pathways in mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) biology. Therefore strong efforts have been made to introduce tissue engineering and cell therapeutics as an alternative treatment option for patients with bone defects. This review of the literature gives an overview of MSC biology aiming for clinical application including advantages but also specific challenges and problems which are associated with cord blood derived stromal cell (CB-MSC) as a source for bone regeneration. The use of postnatal CB-MSC is ethically uncomplicated and requires no invasive harvesting procedure. Moreover, most data document a high osteogenic potential of CB-MCS and also low immunoreactivity compared with other MSC types. The expression profile of CB-MSC during osteogenic differentiation shows similarities to that of other MSC types. Within the umbilical cord different MSC types have been characterized which are potent to differentiate into osteoblasts. In contrast to a large number of in vitro investigations there are only few in vivo studies available so far.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationAnimalsBone and BonesCell DifferentiationFetal BloodHumansMesodermModels, BiologicalOsteoblastsOsteogenesisStem Cell TransplantationStromal Cells

Identifiers

PMID19652969

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.