Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20739312›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2010

Biological characteristics of stem cells from foetal, cord blood and extraembryonic tissues.

Hassan Abdulrazzak, Dafni Moschidou, Gemma Jones, Pascale V Guillot

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Transplantation of the LRP1Stem cell research & therapy · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Human amniotic fluid as a source of stem cells.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hassan AbdulrazzakInstitute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, UK.
Dafni Moschidou
Gemma Jones
Pascale V Guillot
Imperial College London · GBGoogle (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foetal stem cells (FSCs) can be isolated during gestation from many different tissues such as blood, liver and bone marrow as well as from a variety of extraembryonic tissues such as amniotic fluid and placenta. Strong evidence suggests that these cells differ on many biological aspects such as growth kinetics, morphology, immunophenotype, differentiation potential and engraftment capacity in vivo. Despite these differences, FSCs appear to be more primitive and have greater multi-potentiality than their adult counterparts. For example, foetal blood haemopoietic stem cells proliferate more rapidly than those found in cord blood or adult bone marrow. These features have led to FSCs being investigated for pre- and post-natal cell therapy and regenerative medicine applications. The cells have been used in pre-clinical studies to treat a wide range of diseases such as skeletal dysplasia, diaphragmatic hernia and respiratory failure, white matter damage, renal pathologies as well as cancers. Their intermediate state between adult and embryonic stem cells also makes them an ideal candidate for reprogramming to the pluripotent status.

Indexed as

Regenerative MedicineAmnionAmniotic FluidAnimalsCell Culture TechniquesCell DifferentiationFemaleFetal BloodFetal Stem CellsFetusHumansMicePhenotypePlacentaPregnancyTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID20739312
PMCPMC2988276
OpenAlexW2147533029

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.