Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25976213›Full record

ReviewStem cell research & therapy2015

Autologous, allogeneic, induced pluripotent stem cell or a combination stem cell therapy? Where are we headed in cartilage repair and why: a concise review.

Lucienne A Vonk, Tommy S de Windt, Ineke C M Slaper-Cortenbach, Daniël B F Saris

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell research & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A formal ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 2-Cell-based therapy.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Cartilage Tissue Engineering: An Introduction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Tissue Engineering for the Temporomandibular Joint.Advanced healthcare materials · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Lucienne A VonkDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G05.228, PO Box 85090, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. l.a.vonk@umcutrecht.nl.
Tommy S de WindtDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G05.228, PO Box 85090, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. twindt@umcutrecht.nl.
Ineke C M Slaper-CortenbachCell Therapy Facility, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP F03.821, PO Box 85090, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. I.Slaper@umcutrecht.nl.
Daniël B F SarisDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G05.228, PO Box 85090, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. D.Saris@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of articular cartilage repair procedures has resulted in a variety of cell-based therapies that use both autologous and allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). As these cells are increasingly available and show promising results both in vitro and in vivo, cell-based strategies, which aim to improve ease of use and cost-effectiveness, are progressively explored. The use of MSCs in cartilage repair makes it possible to develop single-stage cell-based therapies. However, true single-stage procedures rely on one intervention, which will limit cell sources to fraction concentrates containing autologous MSCs or culture-expanded allogeneic MSCs. So far, it seems both autologous and allogeneic cells can safely be applied, but clinical studies are still ongoing and little information on clinical outcome is available. Further development of cell-based therapies may lead to clinical-grade, standardized, off-the-shelf products with easy handling for orthopedic surgeons. Although as of yet no preclinical or clinical studies are ongoing which explore the use of induced pluripotent stem cells for cartilage repair, a good manufacturing practice-grade induced pluripotent stem cell line might become the basis for such a product in the future, providing that cell fate can be controlled. The use of stem cells in clinical trials brings along new ethical issues, such as proper controls and selecting primary outcome measures. More clinical trials are needed to estimate detailed risk-benefit ratios and trials must be carefully designed to minimize risks and burdens for patients while choosing outcome measures that allow for adequate comparison with results from similar trials. In this review, we discuss the different aspects of new stem cell-based treatments, including safety and ethical issues, as well as provide an overview of current clinical trials exploring these approaches and future perspectives.

Indexed as

Mesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationCartilage DiseasesClinical Trials as TopicHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMesenchymal Stem CellsTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation, Homologous

Identifiers

PMID25976213
PMCPMC4430904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.