Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25100531›Full record

ReviewNature medicine2014

Preparing the ground for tissue regeneration: from mechanism to therapy.

Stuart J Forbes, Nadia Rosenthal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 276 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
276citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

276 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

216 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

2 authors.

Stuart J ForbesMRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nadia Rosenthal1] National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. [2] Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/10/19/28218Medical Research Council G1000868Medical Research Council MR/K017047/1Medical Research Council MR/K026666/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic diseases confer tissue and organ damage that reduce quality of life and are largely refractory to therapy. Although stem cells hold promise for treating degenerative diseases by 'seeding' injured tissues, the regenerative capacity of stem cells is influenced by regulatory networks orchestrated by local immune responses to tissue damage, with macrophages being a central component of the injury response and coordinator of tissue repair. Recent research has turned to how cellular and signaling components of the local stromal microenvironment (the 'soil' to the stem cells' seed), such as local inflammatory reactions, contribute to successful tissue regeneration. This Review discusses the basic principles of tissue regeneration and the central role locally acting components may play in the process. Application of seed-and-soil concepts to regenerative medicine strengthens prospects for developing cell-based therapies or for promotion of endogenous repair.

Indexed as

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCell DifferentiationHumansInflammationMacrophagesMast CellsNeutrophilsRegenerationRegenerative MedicineStem Cell NicheStem Cell TransplantationWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID25100531

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.