SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2015
Parkinson's disease: fetal cell or stem cell-derived treatments.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stem Cell-based and Advanced Therapeutic Modalities for Parkinson's Disease: A Risk-effectiveness Patient-centered Analysis.Current neuropharmacology · 2022Review
- Biomaterials as carrier, barrier and reactor for cell-based regenerative medicine.Protein & cell · 2015Review
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
introductionThe mean age of onset of Parkinson's disease is about 65 years, with a median time of 9 years between diagnosis and death. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of fetal cell or stem cell-derived therapy in people with Parkinson's disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to September 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found two studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: fetal cell therapy versus deep brain stimulation; fetal cell therapy versus sham surgery; stem cell-derived therapy versus deep brain stimulation; stem cell-derived therapy versus sham surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25898159PMC4404982W866479381What 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.