Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20882052›Full record

ReviewGene therapy2011

Progress and prospects: stem cells and neurological diseases.

S Gögel, M Gubernator, S L Minger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gene therapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S GögelWolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, Guy's Campus, King's College London, London, UK. stefanie.gogel@kcl.ac.uk
M Gubernator
S L Minger
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The central nervous system has limited capacity of regenerating lost tissue in slowly progressive, degenerative neurological conditions such as Parkinson's disease (PD), Alzheimer's disease or Huntington's disease (HD), or in acute injuries resulting in rapid cell loss for example, in cerebrovascular damage (for example, stroke) or spinal cord injury. Although the adult brain contains small numbers of stem cells in restricted areas, they do not contribute significantly to functional recovery. Transplantation of stem cells or stem cell-derived progenitors has long been seen as a therapeutic solution to repair the damaged brain. With the advent of the induced pluripotent stem cells technique a new and potentially better source for transplantable cells may be available in future. This review aims to highlight current strategies to replace lost cellular populations in neurodegenerative diseases with the focus on HD and PD and traumatic brain injuries such as stroke, discussing many of the technical and biological issues associated with central nervous system cell transplantation.

Indexed as

Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsBrain InjuriesHumansModels, BiologicalNervous System DiseasesRecovery of FunctionStem Cells

Identifiers

PMID20882052
OpenAlexW1973466789

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.