ArticleStem cells international2016
Are They Really Stem Cells? Scrutinizing the Identity of Cells and the Quality of Reporting in the Use of Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cells.
Article in Stem cells international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical development of stem-cell-based interventions.Nature medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an increasing concern that the term adipose tissue-derived stem cell (ASC) is inappropriately used to refer to the adipose stromal vascular fraction (SVF). To evaluate the accuracy and quality of reporting, 116 manuscripts on the application of ASC in humans and animals were examined based on the 2013 published International Federation for Adipose Therapeutics and Science (IFATS)/ International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) joint statement and in reference to current guidelines for clinical trials and preclinical studies. It is disconcerting that 4 among the 47 papers or 8.51% (CI 2.37-20.38) surveyed after publication of IFATS/ISCT statement reported using ASCs but in fact they used unexpanded cells. 28/47 or 59.57% (CI 44.27-73.63) explicitly reported that adherent cells were used, 35/47 or 74.47% (CI 59.65-86.06) identified expression of surface markers, and 25/47 or 53.19% (CI 14.72-30.65) verified the multilineage potential of the cells. While there are a number of papers examined in this survey that were not able to provide adequate information on the characteristics of ASCs used with some erroneously referring to the SVF as stem cells, there are more room for improvement in the quality of reporting in the application of ASCs in humans and animals.
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.