Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24509721›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2014

Disc cell therapies: critical issues.

Marta Tibiletti, Nevenka Kregar Velikonja, Jill P G Urban, Jeremy C T Fairbank

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Advances and Prospects in Biomaterials for Intervertebral Disk Regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Viability, growth kinetics and stem cell markers of single and clustered cells in human intervertebral discs: implications for regenerative therapies.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2014
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Marta TibilettiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Nevenka Kregar Velikonja
Jill P G Urban
Jeremy C T Fairbank
Educell · SIIstituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisc cell therapies, in which cells are injected into the degenerate disc in order to regenerate the matrix and restore function, appear to be an attractive, minimally invasive method of treatment. Interest in this area has stimulated research into disc cell biology in particular. However, other important issues, some of which are discussed here, need to be considered if cell-based therapies are to be brought to the clinic. PURPOSE: Firstly, a question which is barely addressed in the literature, is how to identify patients with 'degenerative disc disease' who would benefit from cell therapy. Pain not disc degeneration is the symptom which drives patients to the clinic. Even though there are associations between back pain and disc degeneration, many people with even severely degenerate discs, with herniated discs or with spinal stenosis, are pain-free. It is not possible using currently available techniques to identify whether disc repair or regeneration would remove symptoms or prevent symptoms from occurring in future. Moreover, the repair process in human discs is very slow (years) because of the low cell density which can be supported nutritionally even in healthy human discs. If repair is necessary for relief of symptoms, questions regarding quality of life and rehabilitation during this long process need consideration. Also, some serious technical issues remain. Finding appropriate cell sources and scaffolds have received most attention, but these are not the only issues determining the feasibility of the procedure. There are questions regarding the safety of implanting cells by injection through the annulus whether the nutrient supply to the disc is sufficient to support implanted cells and whether, if cells are able to survive, conditions in a degenerate human disc will allow them to repair the damaged tissue.

conclusionsIf cell therapy for treatment of disc-related disorders is to enter the clinic as a routine treatment, investigations must examine the questions related to patient selection and the feasibility of achieving the desired repair in an acceptable time frame. Few diagnostic tests that examine whether cell therapies are likely to succeed are available at present, but definite exclusion criteria would be evidence of major disc fissures, or disturbance of nutrient pathways as measured by post-contrast MRI.

Indexed as

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyChondrocytesHumansIntervertebral DiscIntervertebral Disc DegenerationIntervertebral Disc DisplacementRegenerationSpinal Stenosis

Identifiers

PMID24509721
OpenAlexW2399193895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.