Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29386049›Full record

ArticleStem cell research & therapy2018

An open-label proof-of-concept study of intrathecal autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in intellectual disability.

Alok Sharma, Hemangi Sane, Nandini Gokulchandran, Suhasini Pai, Pooja Kulkarni, Vaishali Ganwir, Maitree Maheshwari, Ridhima Sharma, Meenakshi Raichur, Samson Nivins and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02245724 (Stem Cell Therapy in Mental Retardation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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.

NCT02245724 phase1withdrawnnot on this map

Stem Cell Therapy in Mental Retardation

TypeinterventionalSponsorNeurogen Brain and Spine InstituteRan2011 to 2016Enrolled0ConditionsMental RetardationArmsStem Cell
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alok SharmaDepartment of Medical Services, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Hemangi SaneDepartment of Research and Development, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Nandini GokulchandranDepartment of Medical Services, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Suhasini PaiDepartment of Research and Development, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3888-5425
Pooja KulkarniDepartment of Research and Development, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India. publications@neurogen.in.
Vaishali GanwirDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Maitree MaheshwariDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Ridhima SharmaDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Meenakshi RaichurDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Samson NivinsDepartment of Research and Development, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Prerna BadheDepartment of Medical Services, NeuroGen Brain and Spine Institute, Plot No. 19, Sector 40, Opp Rail Vihar, Next to Seawood Station (w), Navi Mumbai, 400706, India.
Neurogen Brain & Spine Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe underlying pathophysiology in intellectual disability (ID) involves abnormalities in dendritic branching and connectivity of the neuronal network. This limits the ability of the brain to process information. Conceptually, cellular therapy through its neurorestorative and neuroregenerative properties can counteract these pathogenetic mechanisms and improve neuronal connectivity. This improved networking should exhibit as clinical efficacy in patients with ID.

methodsTo assess the safety and efficacy of cellular therapy in patients with ID, we conducted an open-label proof-of-concept study from October 2011 to December 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: intervention group (n = 29) and rehabilitation group (n = 29). The intervention group underwent cellular transplantation consisting of intrathecal administration of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells and standard neurorehabilitation. The rehabilitation group underwent only standard neurorehabilitation. The results of the symptomatic outcomes were compared between the two groups. In the intervention group analysis, the outcome measures used were the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the Wee Functional Independence Measure (Wee-FIM). To compare the pre-intervention and post-intervention results, statistical analysis was done using Wilcoxon's matched-pairs test for Wee-FIM scores and McNemar's test for symptomatic improvements and IQ. The effect of age and severity of the disorder were assessed for their impact on the outcome of intervention. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) brain scan was used as a monitoring tool to study effects of the intervention. Adverse events were monitored for the safety of cellular therapy.

resultsOn symptomatic analysis, greater improvements were seen in the intervention group as compared to the rehabilitation group. In the intervention group, the symptomatic improvements, IQ and Wee-FIM were statistically significant. A significantly better outcome of the intervention was found in the paediatric age group (<18 years) and patients with milder severity of ID. Repeat PET-CT scan in three patients of the intervention group showed improved metabolism in the frontal, parietal cortex, thalamus, mesial temporal structures and cerebellum. No major adverse events were witnessed.

conclusionsCellular transplantation with neurorehabilitation is safe and effective for the treatment of underlying brain deficits in ID.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02245724. Registered 12 September 2014.

Indexed as

AdolescentBone Marrow CellsBone Marrow TransplantationCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCerebellumFemaleHumansIntellectual DisabilityIntelligenceIntelligence TestsMaleMonocytesParietal LobeProof of Concept StudyThalamusTransplantation, AutologousAutologous bone marrow mononuclear cellsAutologous transplantationCellular therapyIntellectual disabilityNeurorehabilitationPositron emission tomography-computed tomography scanStem cells

Identifiers

PMID29386049
PMCPMC5793399
OpenAlexW2790221382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.