ReviewGlobal spine journal2013
Biologically based therapy for the intervertebral disk: who is the patient?
Review in Global spine journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Step Extrusion Printing of Microgrooved Annulus Fibrosus Scaffolds via Patterned Nozzles.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- In Vitro Release and In Vivo Study of Recombinant TGF-β and EGCG from Dual Self-Cross-Linked Alginate-Di-AldehydeGels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cell sources proposed for nucleus pulposus regeneration.JOR spine · 2021Review
- Article
- Controversies in regenerative medicine: Should intervertebral disc degeneration be treated with mesenchymal stem cells?JOR spine · 2019Review
- MicroRNA-221 silencing attenuates the degenerated phenotype of intervertebral disc cells.Aging · 2018Article
- Precision Spine Care: A New Era of Discovery, Innovation, and Global Impact.Global spine journal · 2018Article
- Locomotive Syndrome: Definition and Management.Clinical reviews in bone and mineral metabolismReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intervertebral disk (IVD) is a fascinating and resilient tissue compartment given the myriad of functions that it performs as well as its unique anatomy. The IVD must tolerate immense loads, protect the spinal cord, and contribute considerable flexibility and strength to the spinal column. In addition, as a consequence of its anatomical and physiological configuration, a unique characteristic of the IVD is that it also provides a barrier to metastatic disease. However, when injured and/or the subject of significant degenerative change, the IVD can be the source of substantial pain and disability. Considerable efforts have been made over the past several decades with respect to regenerating or at least modulating degenerative changes affecting the IVD through the use of many biological agents such as growth factors, hydrogels, and the use of plant sterols and even spices common to Ayurvedic medicine. More recently stem/progenitor and autologous chondrocytes have been used mostly in animal models of disk disease but also a few trials involving humans. At the end of the day if biological therapies are to offer benefit to the patient, the outcomes must be improved function and/or less pain and also must be improvements upon measures that are already in clinical practice. Here some of the challenges posed by the degenerative IVD and a summary of some of the regenerative attempts both in vitro and in vivo are discussed within the context of the vital question: "Who is the patient?"
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.