Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27870924›Full record

SynthesiseLife2016

Evaluating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for sepsis with preclinical meta-analyses prior to initiating a first-in-human trial.

Manoj M Lalu, Katrina J Sullivan, Shirley Hj Mei, David Moher, Alexander Straus, Dean A Fergusson, Duncan J Stewart, Mazen Jazi, Malcolm MacLeod, Brent Winston and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in eLife, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology.Archives of toxicology · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

14 authors.

Manoj M LaluDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0322-382X
Katrina J SullivanClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Shirley Hj MeiRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Alexander StrausClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Dean A FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Duncan J StewartRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9113-8691
Mazen JaziClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Malcolm MacLeodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Brent WinstonDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
John MarshallDepartments of Surgery and Critical Care Medicine, Keenan Research Centre of the Li KaShing Knowledge Institute, St. Michaels Hospital, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Brian HuttonClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Keith R WalleyDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Lauralyn McIntyreClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7421-1407

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of preclinical evidence prior to initiating early-phase clinical studies has typically been performed by selecting individual studies in a non-systematic process that may introduce bias. Thus, in preparation for a first-in-human trial of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) for septic shock, we applied systematic review methodology to evaluate all published preclinical evidence. We identified 20 controlled comparison experiments (980 animals from 18 publications) of

Indexed as

Mesenchymal Stem CellsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicHumansSepsisepidemiologyglobal healthhuman biologymedicinemousepreclinicalratsepsisstem cellssystematic reviewtranslation

Identifiers

PMID27870924
PMCPMC5153252

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.