Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908143›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2016

Pluripotent stem cells progressing to the clinic.

Alan Trounson, Natalie D DeWitt

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 173 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
173citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

173 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Microneedle-Assisted Cell Delivery and Therapy.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Biomaterials for Cell Manufacturing.ACS macro letters · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Classes of Stem Cells: From Biology to Engineering.Regenerative engineering and translational medicine · 2024
    Article
  20. Review

113 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

2 authors.

Alan TrounsonMonash University and Hudson Institute for Medical Research, 27-31 Right Street, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia.
Natalie D DeWittCalifornia Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650, Oakland, 94612, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Basic experimental stem cell research has opened up the possibility of many diverse clinical applications; however, translation to clinical trials has been restricted to only a few diseases. To broaden this clinical scope, pluripotent stem cell derivatives provide a uniquely scalable source of functional differentiated cells that can potentially repair damaged or diseased tissues to treat a wide spectrum of diseases and injuries. However, gathering sound data on their distribution, longevity, function and mechanisms of action in host tissues is imperative to realizing their clinical benefit. The large-scale availability of treatments involving pluripotent stem cells remains some years away, because of the long and demanding regulatory pathway that is needed to ensure their safety.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsStem Cell TransplantationAnimalsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHumans

Identifiers

PMID26908143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.