ReviewJournal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs2014
Is regenerative medicine a new hope for kidney replacement?
Review in Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revolutionizing Renal Replacement: Current Advancements in Development and Transplantation of Bioengineered Kidneys.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Stem Cell Aging and Regenerative Medicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Review
- The use of stem cells in aesthetic dermatology and plastic surgery procedures. A compact review of experimental and clinical applications.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2017Article
- Advances in the Knowledge about Kidney Decellularization and Repopulation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2017Review
- Novel surgical techniques, regenerative medicine, tissue engineering and innovative immunosuppression in kidney transplantation.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The availability of kidney and other organs from matching donors is not enough for many patients on demand for organ transplant. Unfortunately, this situation is not better despite the many of new interesting projects of promoting family, cross or domino transplants. These inexorable global statistics forced medical researchers to find a new potential therapeutic option that would guarantee safety and efficacy for the treatment of ESRD comparable to kidney transplantation. The aim of our review is to summarize the scientific literature that relating to the modern as well as innovative experimental methods and possibilities of kidney regeneration and, in addition, to find whether the regenerative medicine field will be a new hope for curing the patient with renal disease complications. The most important achievements in the field of regenerative medicine of kidney, which were mentioned and described here, are currently cumulated in 4 areas of interest: stem cell-based therapies, neo-kidneys with specially designed scaffolds or cell-seeded matrices, bioartificial kidneys and innovative nanotechnologically bioengineered solutions. Nowadays, we can add some remarks that the regenerative medicine is still insufficient to completely replace current therapy methods used in patients with chronic kidney disease especially with the end-stage renal disease where in many cases kidney transplantation is the only one chance. But we think that development of regenerative medicine especially in the last 20 years brings us more and more closer to solve many of today's problems at the frontier of nephrology and transplantology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24748421What 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.