Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27374789›Full record

ArticleCell stem cell2016

Selling Stem Cells in the USA: Assessing the Direct-to-Consumer Industry.

Leigh Turner, Paul Knoepfler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cell stem cell, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

138 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The impact of revised regenerative medicine regulations on unapproved gene therapies in Japan.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Stem cell therapy for peripheral nerve injury: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Advanced therapies in orthopaedics.EFORT open reviews · 2024
    Review

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Leigh TurnerCenter for Bioethics, School of Public Health, and College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: turne462@umn.edu.
Paul KnoepflerDepartment of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA; Institute of Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Shriners Hospital For Children Northern California, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. Electronic address: knoepfler@ucdavis.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer marketing of unapproved stem cell interventions is a well-known phenomenon in countries with lax medical regulations. However, an examination of Internet-based marketing claims revealed widespread promotion of such interventions by businesses based in the United States. Such commercial activity suggests that regulatory agencies must better oversee this marketplace.

Indexed as

MarketingDrug IndustryGeographyHumansPolicyRiskStem CellsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27374789

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.