Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24232253›Full record

ReviewExperimental & molecular medicine2013

Mesenchymal stem cells: environmentally responsive therapeutics for regenerative medicine.

Matthew B Murphy, Kathryn Moncivais, Arnold I Caplan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental & molecular medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 605 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
605citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

605 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

545 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

3 authors.

Matthew B MurphyCelling Biosciences, Austin, TX, USA.
Kathryn Moncivais
Arnold I Caplan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are partially defined by their ability to differentiate into tissues including bone, cartilage and adipose in vitro, but it is their trophic, paracrine and immunomodulatory functions that may have the greatest therapeutic impact in vivo. Unlike pharmaceutical treatments that deliver a single agent at a specific dose, MSCs are site regulated and secrete bioactive factors and signals at variable concentrations in response to local microenvironmental cues. Significant progress has been made in understanding the biochemical and metabolic mechanisms and feedback associated with MSC response. The anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory capacity of MSC may be paramount in the restoration of localized or systemic conditions for normal healing and tissue regeneration. Allogeneic MSC treatments, categorized as a drug by regulatory agencies, have been widely pursued, but new studies demonstrate the efficacy of autologous MSC therapies, even for individuals affected by a disease state. Safety and regulatory concerns surrounding allogeneic cell preparations make autologous and minimally manipulated cell therapies an attractive option for many regenerative, anti-inflammatory and autoimmune applications.

Indexed as

Cellular MicroenvironmentMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsHumansMesenchymal Stem CellsRegenerative Medicine

Identifiers

PMID24232253
PMCPMC3849579

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.