Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30276292›Full record

ReviewBrain circulation

Science, ethics and communication remain essential for the success of cell-based therapies.

Massimo Dominici, Karen M Nichols, Aaron D Levine, John Ej Rasko, Miguel Forte, Lynn O'Donnell, Mickey Bc Koh, Catherine M Bollard, Daniel J Weiss

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain circulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

9 authors.

Massimo DominiciLaboratory of Cellular Therapy, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Karen M NicholsNantKwest, Inc., Woburn, MA, USA.
Aaron D LevineSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
John Ej RaskoGene and Stem Cell Therapy Program, Centenary Institute, University of Sydney, Australia.
Miguel ForteTxCell, Valbonne, France.
Lynn O'DonnellDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Mickey Bc KohDepartment of Haematology, St. George's Hospital, London, UK.
Catherine M BollardCenter for Cancer and Immunology Research, Sheikh Zayed Institute, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC, USA.
Daniel J WeissDepartment of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-based therapeutics, such as marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, are a standard of care for certain malignancies. More recently, a wider variety of cell-based therapeutics including the use of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells, T-cells, and others show great promise in a wider range of diseases. With increased efforts to expand cell-based treatments to several clinical settings, many institutions around the world have developed programs to explore cellular therapy's potential for safe and effective applications. In legitimate investigations, usually conducted through academic centers or biotechnology industry-sponsored efforts, these studies are regulated and peer-reviewed to ensure safety and clear determination of potential efficacy. However, in some cases, the use of cell-based approaches is conducted with insufficient preclinical data, scientific rationale, and/or study plan for the diseases claimed to be treated, with patients being charged for these services without clear evidence of clinical benefit. In this context, patients may not be properly informed regarding the exact treatment they are receiving within a consenting process that may not be completely valid or ethical. Here, the authors emphasize the importance of distinguishing "proven cell-based therapies" from "unproven" and unauthorized cell-based therapies. This publication also addresses the necessity for improved communication between the different stakeholders in the field, patient associations, and advocacy groups in particular, to favor medical innovation and provide legitimate benefits to patients. Considering the progressive growth of cell-based treatments, their increasing therapeutic value and the expectation that society has about these therapies, it is critically important to protect patients and ensure that the risk/benefit ratio is favorable. This paper is a review article. Literature referred to in this paper has been listed in the references section. The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available online by searching PubMed. Some original points in this article come from the laboratory practice in our research centers and the authors' experiences.

Indexed as

Communicationinformed consentmedical tourismmesenchymal stem/stromal cellsregulationsstem cellsunproven cell therapies

Identifiers

PMID30276292
PMCPMC6126268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.