Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26715856›Full record

ReviewStem cells and cloning : advances and applications2015

Stem cell technology for tendon regeneration: current status, challenges, and future research directions.

Pauline Po Yee Lui

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells and cloning : advances and applications, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Biomacromolecules · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Mechanobiological Strategies to Enhance Ovine (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pauline Po Yee LuiHeadquarter, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China.
Hospital Authority · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tendon injuries are a common cause of physical disability. They present a clinical challenge to orthopedic surgeons because injured tendons respond poorly to current treatments without tissue regeneration and the time required for rehabilitation is long. New treatment options are required. Stem cell-based therapies offer great potential to promote tendon regeneration due to their high proliferative, synthetic, and immunomodulatory activities as well as their potential to differentiate to the target cell types and undergo genetic modification. In this review, I first recapped the challenges of tendon repair by reviewing the anatomy of tendon. Next, I discussed the advantages and limitations of using different types of stem cells compared to terminally differentiated cells for tendon tissue engineering. The safety and efficacy of application of stem cells and their modified counterparts for tendon tissue engineering were then summarized after a systematic literature search in PubMed. The challenges and future research directions to enhance, optimize, and standardize stem cell-based therapies for augmenting tendon repair were then discussed.

Indexed as

stem cellstendon injuriestendon repairtendon tissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID26715856
PMCPMC4685888
OpenAlexW2208641725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.