Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28397112›Full record

ReviewCNS drugs2017

Cell Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis.

Pamela Sarkar, Claire M Rice, Neil J Scolding

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CNS drugs, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The preventive effect ofAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
    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

3 authors.

Pamela SarkarInstitute of Clinical Neurosciences, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, L&R Building, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Claire M RiceInstitute of Clinical Neurosciences, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, L&R Building, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Neil J ScoldingInstitute of Clinical Neurosciences, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, L&R Building, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. n.j.scolding@bristol.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K004166/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell therapy is considered a promising potential treatment for multiple sclerosis, perhaps particularly for the progressive form of the disease for which there are currently no useful treatments. Over the past two decades or more, much progress has been made in understanding the biology of MS and in the experimental development of cell therapy for this disease. Three quite distinct forms of cell therapy are currently being pursued. The first seeks to use stem cells to replace damaged myelin-forming oligodendrocytes within the CNS; the second aims, in effect, to replace the individual's misfunctioning immune system, making use of haematopoietic stem cells; and the third seeks to utilise endogenous stem cell populations by mobilisation with or without in vitro expansion, exploiting their various reparative and neuroprotective properties. In this article we review progress in these three separate areas, summarising the experimental background and clinical progress thus far made.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHematopoietic Stem CellsHumansMultiple SclerosisMyelin SheathOligodendrogliaStem Cells

Identifiers

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.