Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31381876›Full record

ReviewBrain research2019

Efficacy of stem cell-based therapies for stroke.

Matthew R Chrostek, Emily G Fellows, Andrew T Crane, Andrew W Grande, Walter C Low

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. GHRH and its analogues in central nervous system diseases.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew R ChrostekDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Emily G FellowsDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Andrew T CraneDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Andrew W GrandeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Walter C LowDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: lowwalt@umn.edu.
University of Minnesota Medical Center · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR002492 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI INGBAR, DAVID H · 2018 to 2022
$6.3M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002492NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke remains a prevalent disease with limited treatment options. Available treatments offer little in the way of enhancing neurogenesis and recovery. Because of the limitations of available treatments, new therapies for stroke are needed. Stem cell-based therapies for stroke offer promise because of their potential to provide neurorestorative benefits. Stem cell-based therapies aim to promote neurogenesis and replacement of lost neurons or protect surviving neurons in order to improve neurological recovery. The mechanism through which stem cell treatments mediate their therapeutic effect is largely dependent on the type of stem cell and route of administration. Neural stem cells have been shown in pre-clinical and clinical trials to promote functional recovery when used in intracerebral transplantations. The therapeutic effects of neural stem cells have been attributed to their formation of new neurons and promotion of neuroregeneration. Bone marrow stem cells (BMSC) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have been shown to enhance neurogenesis in pre-clinical models in intracerebral transplantations, but lack clinical evidence to support this therapeutic approach in patients and appear to be less effective than neural stem cells. Intravenous and intra-arterial administration of BMSC and MSC have shown more promise, where their effects are largely mediated through neuroprotective mechanisms. The immune system has been implicated in exacerbating initial damage caused by stroke, and BMSC and MSC have demonstrated immunomodulatory properties capable of dampening post-stroke inflammation and potentially improving recovery. While still in development, stem cell therapies may yield new treatments for stroke which can improve neurological recovery.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainCord Blood Stem Cell TransplantationEncephalitisHumansMesenchymal Stem CellsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationNeural Stem CellsNeurogenesisStem Cell TransplantationStrokeTreatment OutcomeInflammationMesenchymal stem cellNeural stem cellNeuroregenerationStem cellStroke

Identifiers

PMID31381876
PMCPMC6815222
OpenAlexW2965701292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.