ReviewClinical rheumatology2017
Bone regeneration in the stem cell era: safe play for the patient?
Review in Clinical rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidimensional bibliometric analysis and global trends in the nervous system's role in bone regeneration.Regenerative therapy · 2026Article
- Blood Flow in the Scaphoid Is Improved by Focused Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Extracellular micro/nanovesicles rescue kidney from ischemia-reperfusion injury.Journal of cellular physiology · 2019Review
- Bioceramics and bone healing.EFORT open reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The past decade has seen outstanding scientific progress in the field of stem cell (SC) research and clinical application. SCs are convenient both technically and biologically: they are easy to find and to culture and they can differentiate in virtually all tissues and even in whole organs. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSs) are a type of pluripotent SC generated in vitro directly from mature cells through the introduction of key transcription factors. The use of iPSs, however tantalizing, poses serious safety concerns because of their genomic instability. Recently, it has been suggested that the main mechanism of SC action relies on paracrine signals. Therefore, the secretome would be primarily responsible for SC effects. The therapeutical use of secretome is safer and more reliable and offers manufacturing, handling and transportation advantages. The authors discuss current applications of SCs with particular respect to bone regeneration stressing the possible risks that may arise from incautious employments of SCs-particularly when associated with stimulating factors. Safety issues hamper the advancement of SC-based innovative therapies and raise the need for novel standards to adequately address and rule out inconsistency and other concerns, considering the permanent nature of SC treatments. Many biological aspects concerning dose, time and site of administration are still to be elucidated. Solid clinical data and trials with long-term follow-ups are highly recommended as a means to evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of each potential intervention and to provide patients with clear and accurate information.
Indexed as
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.