Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28279182›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2017

The use of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage repair and regeneration: a systematic review.

Andy Goldberg, Katrina Mitchell, Julian Soans, Louise Kim, Razi Zaidi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
25.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 213 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

48 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andy GoldbergInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH), Brockley Hill Stanmore, London, HA7 4LP, UK.
Katrina MitchellInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH), Brockley Hill Stanmore, London, HA7 4LP, UK.
Julian SoansInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH), Brockley Hill Stanmore, London, HA7 4LP, UK.
Louise KimJoint Research and Enterprise Office, St George's University of London and St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hunter Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK.
Razi ZaidiInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH), Brockley Hill Stanmore, London, HA7 4LP, UK. razizaidi@doctors.net.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5898-0142
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe management of articular cartilage defects presents many clinical challenges due to its avascular, aneural and alymphatic nature. Bone marrow stimulation techniques, such as microfracture, are the most frequently used method in clinical practice however the resulting mixed fibrocartilage tissue which is inferior to native hyaline cartilage. Other methods have shown promise but are far from perfect. There is an unmet need and growing interest in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering to improve the outcome for patients requiring cartilage repair. Many published reviews on cartilage repair only list human clinical trials, underestimating the wealth of basic sciences and animal studies that are precursors to future research. We therefore set out to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the translation of stem cell therapy to explore what research had been carried out at each of the stages of translation from bench-top (in vitro), animal (pre-clinical) and human studies (clinical) and assemble an evidence-based cascade for the responsible introduction of stem cell therapy for cartilage defects. This review was conducted in accordance to PRISMA guidelines using CINHAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases from 1st January 1900 to 30th June 2015. In total, there were 2880 studies identified of which 252 studies were included for analysis (100 articles for in vitro studies, 111 studies for animal studies; and 31 studies for human studies). There was a huge variance in cell source in pre-clinical studies both of terms of animal used, location of harvest (fat, marrow, blood or synovium) and allogeneicity. The use of scaffolds, growth factors, number of cell passages and number of cells used was hugely heterogeneous. SHORT

conclusionsThis review offers a comprehensive assessment of the evidence behind the translation of basic science to the clinical practice of cartilage repair. It has revealed a lack of connectivity between the in vitro, pre-clinical and human data and a patchwork quilt of synergistic evidence. Drivers for progress in this space are largely driven by patient demand, surgeon inquisition and a regulatory framework that is learning at the same pace as new developments take place.

Indexed as

AnimalsCartilage, ArticularChondrocytesHumansMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationRegenerationRegenerative MedicineTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsTranslational Research, BiomedicalWound HealingAutologous chondrocyte implantationMatrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantationMesenchymal stem cells

Identifiers

PMID28279182
PMCPMC5345159
OpenAlexW2593575022

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.