Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28951720›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2017

Human Umbilical Cord Blood Cell Transplantation in Neuroregenerative Strategies.

Luisa R Galieva, Yana O Mukhamedshina, Svetlana S Arkhipova, Albert A Rizvanov

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. New Approaches to Tay-Sachs Disease Therapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2018
    Review
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.

Luisa R GalievaOpenLab Gene and Cell Technologies, Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal UniversityKazan, Russia.
Yana O MukhamedshinaOpenLab Gene and Cell Technologies, Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal UniversityKazan, Russia.
Svetlana S ArkhipovaOpenLab Gene and Cell Technologies, Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal UniversityKazan, Russia.
Albert A RizvanovOpenLab Gene and Cell Technologies, Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal UniversityKazan, Russia.
Kazan Federal University · RUKazan State Medical University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At present there is no effective treatment of pathologies associated with the death of neurons and glial cells which take place as a result of physical trauma or ischemic lesions of the nervous system. Thus, researchers have high hopes for a treatment based on the use of stem cells (SC), which are potentially able to replace dead cells and synthesize neurotrophic factors and other molecules that stimulate neuroregeneration. We are often faced with ethical issues when selecting a source of SC. In addition to precluding these, human umbilical cord blood (hUCB) presents a number of advantages when compared with other sources of SC. In this review, we consider the key characteristics of hUCB, the results of various studies focused on the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), ischemic (stroke) and traumatic injuries of the nervous system and the molecular mechanisms of hUCB-derived mononuclear and stem cells.

Indexed as

human umbilical cord blood cellsneurodegeneration diseasesneuroregeneration strategiesspinal cord injurystroke

Identifiers

PMID28951720
PMCPMC5599779
OpenAlexW2751879435

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.