Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23484157›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2013

Cell transplantation for spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

Jun Li, Guilherme Lepski

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.3field-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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Jun LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Eberhard Karls University, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Guilherme Lepski
University of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell transplantation, as a therapeutic intervention for spinal cord injury (SCI), has been extensively studied by researchers in recent years. A number of different kinds of stem cells, neural progenitors, and glial cells have been tested in basic research, and most have been excluded from clinical studies because of a variety of reasons, including safety and efficacy. The signaling pathways, protein interactions, cellular behavior, and the differentiated fates of experimental cells have been studied in vitro in detail. Furthermore, the survival, proliferation, differentiation, and effects on promoting functional recovery of transplanted cells have also been examined in different animal SCI models. However, despite significant progress, a "bench to bedside" gap still exists. In this paper, we comprehensively cover publications in the field from the last years. The most commonly utilized cell lineages were covered in this paper and specific areas covered include survival of grafted cells, axonal regeneration and remyelination, sensory and motor functional recovery, and electrophysiological improvements. Finally we also review the literature on the in vivo tracking techniques for transplanted cells.

Indexed as

Graft SurvivalRegenerationSpinal Cord InjuriesStem Cell TransplantationAnimalsAxonsCell ProliferationCell SurvivalHumans

Identifiers

PMID23484157
PMCPMC3581246
OpenAlexW2020229164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.