ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics
Stem cell therapy in spinal trauma: Does it have scientific validity?
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in acute spinal cord injury--an Indian pilot study.Spinal cord · 2016Trial
- Curcumin Improves Human Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Survival via ERK1/2 Signaling and Promotes Motor Outcomes After Spinal Cord Injury.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2022Article
- Stem cell/cellular interventions in human spinal cord injury: Is it time to move from guidelines to regulations and legislations? Literature review and Spinal Cord Society position statement.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 · 2019Review
- Article
- Report: Stem cell applications in neurological practice, an expert group consensus appraisal.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
- Stem cell therapy in spinal trauma: Does it have scientific validity?Indian journal of orthopaedicsArticle
- Rising to the Challenge: Spinal Ailments in India.Indian journal of orthopaedicsArticle
- Author's reply.Indian journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stem cell-based interventions aim to use special regenerative cells (stem cells) to facilitate neuronal function beyond the site of the injury. Many studies involving animal models of spinal cord injury (SCI) suggest that certain stem cell-based therapies may restore function after SCI. Currently, in case of spinal cord injuries, new discoveries with clinical implications have been continuously made in basic stem cell research, and stem cell-based approaches are advancing rapidly toward application in patients. There is a huge base of preclinical evidence in vitro and in animal models which suggests the safety and clinical efficacy of cellular therapies after SCI. Despite this, data from clinical studies is not very encouraging and at times confounding. Here, we have attempted to cover preclinical and clinical evidence base dealing with safety, feasibility and efficacy of cell based interventions after SCI. The limitations of preclinical data and the reasons underlying its failure to translate in a clinical setting are also discussed. Based on the evidence base, it is suggested that a multifactorial approach is required to address this situation. Need for standardized, stringently designed multi-centric clinical trials for obtaining validated proof of evidence is also highlighted.
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.