Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32249830›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2020

A scoping review of trials for cell-based therapies in human spinal cord injury.

Alice G Willison, Sam Smith, Benjamin M Davies, Mark R N Kotter, Susan C Barnett

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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.

Alice G WillisonNorthern Foundation School, Newcastle Upon Tyne University Hospitals, Newcastle, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0719-8334
Sam SmithUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7654-9732
Benjamin M DaviesAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mark R N KotterAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. mrk25@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5145-7199
Susan C BarnettInstitute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Susan.Barnett@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1009-0575

Funding

Chief Scientist Office TCS/19/22Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSpinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with significant and life-long disability. Yet, despite decades of research, no regenerative treatment has reached clinical practice. Cell-based therapies are one possible regenerative strategy beginning to transfer to human trials from a more extensive pre-clinical basis.

methodsWe therefore conducted a scoping review to synthesise all cell-based trials in SCI to consider the current state of the field and the cell transplant type or strategy with greatest promise. A search strategy of MEDLINE returned 1513 results. All clinical trials including adult human patients with acute or chronic, compete or incomplete SCI and a recorded ASIA score were sought. Exclusion criteria included non-traumatic SCI, paediatric patients and animal studies. A total of 43 studies, treating 1061 patients, were identified. Most trials evaluated cells from the bone marrow (22 papers, 660 patients) or the olfactory bulb (10 papers, 245 patients).

resultsCell transplantation does appear to be safe, with no serious adverse effects being reported in the short-term. 86% of trials described efficacy as a primary outcome. However, varying degrees of outcome reporting prevented meta-analysis. No emerging cell type or technique was identified. The majority of trials, 53%, took place in developing countries, which may suggest more stringent regulatory requirements within Western countries.

conclusionWe believe cell-based transplantation translation remains in its infancy and that, although further robust clinical research is required, it is an important strategy to consider in the treatment of SCI.

Indexed as

Cell TransplantationOutcome Assessment, Health CareHumansSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.