Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23849537›Full record

SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2013

The effect of rigorous study design in the research of autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cell transfer in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Hyunsuk Jeong, Hyeon Woo Yim, Youngseung Cho, Hun Jun Park, Sona Jeong, Hyun-bin Kim, Wonhee Hong, Heejung Kim

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Sample size calculations for blinding assessment.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Random Guess and Wishful Thinking are the Best Blinding Scenarios.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hyunsuk Jeong
Hyeon Woo Yim
Youngseung Cho
Hun Jun Park
Sona Jeong
Hyun-bin Kim
Wonhee Hong
Heejung Kim
Catholic University of Korea · KRSeoul St. Mary's Hospital · KRYeouido St. Mary's Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough blinding is a methodologic safeguard to ensure obtaining comparability of groups in a clinical trial, it is very difficult to maintain blinding from the beginning to the end of a study. The aim of the study was to see how proper blinding of both participants and treatment providers from the planning phase of the study to during the study affected the study outcomes.

methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to November 2011. The studies included in this review were randomized controlled trials, with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), intracoronary (IC) infusion of autologous bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs), unselected BMSCs, 10(8) or more cell dose, and up to 6-month follow-up periods.

resultsThe initial search identified 881 references, of which 17 references were eligible for inclusion. Six of 17 trials isolated cells directly from bone marrow by aspiration in the control group as well as in the BMSC group. Nine of 17 trials underwent both cardiac catheterization and an identical injection procedure on the control group as well as the BMSC group. Compared with the control group, BMSC transplantation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 2.51 (95% CI, 1.20 to 3.83; P = 0.0002; I(2) = 75%) at 6 months. In the present results, the studies that did not perform bone marrow aspiration in the control group showed significant improvement in LVEF by 3.81% (95% CI, 2.44 to 5.17), whereas no significant treatment effect was found in the studies in which the control group underwent bone marrow aspiration, as indicated the LVEF change of -1.29% (95% CI, 4.15 to 1.58). The trials that did not conduct catheterization on control subjects showed significant LVEF changes (4.45%; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.43); however, those with cardiac catheterization as a sham procedure on the control group did not show significant changes in LVEF at 6 months (0.92%; 95% CI, -0.61 to 2.44).

conclusionsUnblinding might be overestimating the treatment effect. These findings suggest that randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of BMSC therapy should be appropriately designed and rigorously applied to avoid bias.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseBone Marrow TransplantationFemaleHumansMaleMyocardial InfarctionResearch DesignTransplantation, Autologous

Identifiers

PMID23849537
PMCPMC3854784
OpenAlexW2112542242

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.