Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29503449›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2018

Cellular regeneration strategies for macular degeneration: past, present and future.

Valeria Chichagova, Dean Hallam, Joseph Collin, Darin Zerti, Birthe Dorgau, Majed Felemban, Majlinda Lako, David H Steel

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Biomedical optics express · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Valeria ChichagovaInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Dean HallamInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9165-3020
Joseph CollinInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Darin ZertiInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Birthe DorgauInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Majed FelembanInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Majlinda LakoInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
David H SteelInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. David.steel@ncl.ac.uk.
Newcastle University · GBSunderland Eye Infirmary · GB

Funding

European Research Council 614620Medical Research Council MC_PC_15030Medical Research Council MC_PC_16054National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/C016106/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite considerable effort and significant therapeutic advances, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) remains the commonest cause of blindness in the developed world. Progressive late-stage AMD with outer retinal degeneration currently has no proven treatment. There has been significant interest in the possibility that cellular treatments may slow or reverse visual loss in AMD. A number of modes of action have been suggested, including cell replacement and rescue, as well as immune modulation to delay the neurodegenerative process. Their appeal in this enigmatic disease relate to their generic, non-pathway-specific effects. The outer retina in particular has been at the forefront of developments in cellular regenerative therapies being surgically accessible, easily observable, as well as having a relatively simple architecture. Both the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and photoreceptors have been considered for replacement therapies as both sheets and cell suspensions. Studies using autologous RPE, and to a lesser extent, foetal retina, have shown proof of principle. A wide variety of cell sources have been proposed with pluripotent stem cell-derived cells currently holding the centre stage. Recent early-phase trials using these cells for RPE replacement have met safety endpoints and hinted at possible efficacy. Animal studies have confirmed the promise that photoreceptor replacement, even in a completely degenerated outer retina may restore some vision. Many challenges, however, remain, not least of which include avoiding immune rejection, ensuring long-term cellular survival and maximising effect. This review provides an overview of progress made, ongoing studies and challenges ahead.

Indexed as

HumansMacular DegenerationPhotoreceptor Cells, VertebrateRetinal DegenerationRetinal Pigment EpitheliumStem Cell Transplantation

Identifiers

PMID29503449
PMCPMC5944658
OpenAlexW2790484925

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.