Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28270209›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2017

Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?

Mark S Corbett, Andrew Webster, Robert Hawkins, Nerys Woolacott

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Stem Cell Therapy, the Market, the Opportunities and the Threat.International journal of molecular and cellular medicine · 2023
    Review
  6. Editorial: Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Preclinical and Clinical Challenges.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The role of preservation in the variability of regenerative medicine products.Regenerative engineering and translational medicine · 2019
    Article
  13. Registry Contributions to Strengthen Cell and Gene Therapeutic Evidence.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2018
    Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark S CorbettCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. mark.corbett@york.ac.uk.
Andrew WebsterScience and Technology Studies Unit, Department of Sociology, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Robert HawkinsMedical Oncology, The Christie Hospital and University of Manchester, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.
Nerys WoolacottCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
University of York · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future. DISCUSSION: Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under "Hospital Exemption" from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice.

conclusionsRecent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCosts and Cost AnalysisDrug IndustryEuropean UnionForecastingHumansRegenerative MedicineTranslational Research, BiomedicalCell therapyEuropean Medicines AgencyGene therapyRegenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID28270209
PMCPMC5341436
OpenAlexW2591365367

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.