Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29075984›Full record

ReviewTranslational stroke research2018

Getting Closer to an Effective Intervention of Ischemic Stroke: The Big Promise of Stem Cell.

Deepaneeta Sarmah, Harpreet Kaur, Jackson Saraf, Kanta Pravalika, Avirag Goswami, Kiran Kalia, Anupom Borah, Xin Wang, Kunjan R Dave, Dileep R Yavagal and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational stroke research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Deepaneeta SarmahDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India.
Harpreet KaurDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India.
Jackson SarafDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India.
Kanta PravalikaDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India.
Avirag GoswamiDepartment of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Kiran KaliaDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India.
Anupom BorahCellular and Molecular Neurobiology Laboratory, Department of Life Science and Bioinformatics, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India.
Xin WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kunjan R DaveDepartment of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Dileep R YavagalDepartment of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Pallab BhattacharyaDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382355, India. pallab.bhu@gmail.com.
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research · INUniversity of Miami · USAssam University · INBoston Children's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stem cell therapy for ischemic stroke has widely been explored. Results from both preclinical and clinical studies have immensely supported the judicious use of stem cells as therapy. These provide an attractive means for preserving and replacing the damaged brain tissues following an ischemic attack. Since the past few years, researchers have used various types of stem cells to replenish insulted neuronal and glial cells in neurological disorders. In the present review, we discuss different types of stem cells employed for the treatment of ischemic stroke and mechanisms and challenges these cells face once introduced into the living system. Further, we also present different ways to maneuver and overcome challenges to translate the advances made at the preclinical level to clinics.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain IschemiaClinical Trials as TopicHumansStem CellsStem Cell TransplantationStrokeCell engineeringClinicalIschemic strokeNeuroprotectionPreclinicalStem cells

Identifiers

PMID29075984
OpenAlexW2765190158

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.