Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23563370›Full record

ReviewThe Indian journal of medical research2013

Pluripotent stem cells for cardiac regeneration: overview of recent advances & emerging trends.

Harsha Pawani, Deepa Bhartiya

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Indian journal of medical research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors.

Harsha PawaniStem Cell Biology Department, National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (ICMR), Mumbai, India.
Deepa Bhartiya

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell based regenerative therapy has emerged as one of the most promising options of treatment for patients suffering from heart failure. Various adult stem cells types have undergone extensive clinical trials with limited success which is believed to be more of a cytokine effect rather than cell therapy. Pluripotent human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) have emerged as an attractive candidate stem cell source for obtaining cardiomyocytes (CMs) because of their tremendous capacity for expansion and unquestioned potential to differentiate into CMs. Studies carried out in animal models indicate that ES-derived CMs can partially remuscularize infarcted hearts and improve contractile function; however, the effect was not sustained over long follow up periods due to their limited capacity of cell division in vivo. Thus, the concept of transplanting multipotent cardiovascular progenitors derived from ES cells has emerged since the progenitors retain robust proliferative ability and multipotent nature enabling repopulation of other myocardial elements also in addition to CMs. Transplantation of CMs (progenitors) seeded in biodegradable scaffold and gel based engineered constructs has met with modest success due to issues like cell penetration, nutrient and oxygen availability and inflammation triggered during scaffold degradation inversely affecting the seeded cells. Recently cell sheet based tissue engineering involving culturing cells on 'intelligent' polymers has been evolved. Generation of a 3-D pulsatile myocardial tissue has been achieved. However, these advances have to be looked at with cautious optimism as many challenges need to be overcome before using these in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationEmbryonic Stem CellsHeartHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMyocardial InfarctionMyocytes, CardiacPluripotent Stem CellsRegeneration

Identifiers

PMID23563370
PMCPMC3657850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.