ArticleBMC medical ethics2018
The involvement of Canadian physicians in promoting and providing unproven and unapproved stem cell interventions.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the awareness of novel advanced therapies among family medicine residents in Spain.PloS one · 2019Trial
- What Do Patients Know About Orthobiologics? Perceived Efficacy, Safety, and Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Myths and Realities about the Private Sector Stem Cell Industry in Malaysia.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- The evolution and ongoing challenge of unproven cell-based interventions.Stem cells translational medicine · 2024Review
- Ethical issues in direct-to-consumer healthcare: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Clinical use of autologous cell-based therapies in an evolving regulatory landscape: A survey of patient experiences and perceptions.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Patients seeking stem cell therapies-a prospective qualitative analysis from a Regenerative Medicine Consult Service.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2022Article
- International stem cell tourism: a critical literature review and evidence-based recommendations.International health · 2022Review
- Unproven stem cell interventions: A global public health problem requiring global deliberation.Stem cell reports · 2021Review
- The law and problematic marketing by private umbilical cord blood banks.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Challenging misinformation and engaging patients: characterizing a regenerative medicine consult service.Regenerative medicine · 2020Article
- Concise Review: A Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Unproven Stem Cell-Based Interventions.Stem cells translational medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect to consumer offerings of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) is a pressing scientific and policy issue. According to media reports, providers of SCIs have emerged in Canada. This study provides the first systematic scan of Canadian providers and associated trends and claims.
methodsThe study sample consisted of 15 websites retrieved from a Google™ keyword search. The websites were assessed by a rater using a peer-reviewed coding frame that queried treatment location, stem cell offerings, treatment claims, supporting evidence, and legal and regulatory compliance. A second rater reviewed a subset of the websites for purposes of inter-rater reliability. Disagreements between raters were resolved by consensus. Data collected by the raters was analyzed in SPSS.
resultsPhysicians are the dominant treatment providers in Canada. Providers operate in urban and semi-urban areas in the most populous provinces. SCIs provided are mainly autologous adult stem cells for multiple conditions including musculoskeletal disorders, spinal cord injury (SCI) and diabetes. Efficacy and benefits of treatment are prominently and positively portrayed, while risks are not mentioned or portrayed as trivial. Regulatory concerns are not discussed.
conclusionsThe involvement of physicians in promoting and providing unproven and unapproved SCIs raises significant ethical, legal and regulatory concerns. Treatment claims and trends appear to contravene applicable professional standards, statutory obligations, and consumer protection laws. While the number of providers observed is still marginal, urgent and proactive regulatory response is needed to prevent proliferation of a potentially exploitative and harmful market for unproven SCIs in Canada.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.