ReviewExpert opinion on biological therapy2013
Stem cell therapy for chronic heart failure: an updated appraisal.
Review in Expert opinion on biological therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engraftment and morphological development of vascularized human iPS cell-derived 3D-cardiomyocyte tissue after xenotransplantation.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Sex Differences of Human Cardiac Progenitor Cells in the Biological Response to TNF-Stem cells international · 2017Article
- Young at Heart: Pioneering Approaches to Model Nonischaemic Cardiomyopathy with Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.Stem cells international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSignificant advances have been made to understand the mechanisms involved in cardiac cell-based therapies. The early translational application of basic science knowledge has led to several animal and human clinical trials. The initial promising beneficial effect of stem cells on cardiac function restoration has been eclipsed by the inability of animal studies to translate into sustained clinical improvements in human clinical trials. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors cover an updated overview of various stem cell populations used in chronic heart failure. A critical review of clinical trials conducted in advanced heart failure patients is proposed, and finally promising avenues for developments in the field of cardiac cell-based therapies are presented. EXPERT OPINION: Several questions remain unanswered, and this limits our ability to understand basic mechanisms involved in stem cell therapeutics. Human studies have revealed critical unresolved issues. Further elucidation of the proper timing, mode delivery and prosurvival factors is imperative, if the field is to advance. The limited benefits seen to date are simply not enough if the potential for substantial recovery of nonfunctioning myocardium is to be realized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.