Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681814›Full record

SynthesisStem cells translational medicine2020

Human endothelial colony-forming cells in regenerative therapy: A systematic review of controlled preclinical animal studies.

Gary Liao, Katina Zheng, Risa Shorr, David S Allan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cells translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gary LiaoClinical Epidemiology and Regenerative Medicine Programs, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Katina ZhengFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3004-156X
Risa ShorrInformation Services, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
David S AllanClinical Epidemiology and Regenerative Medicine Programs, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3261-8289
University of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endothelial colony-forming cells (ECFCs) hold significant promise as candidates for regenerative therapy of vascular injury. Existing studies remain largely preclinical and exhibit marked design heterogeneity. A systematic review of controlled preclinical trials of human ECFCs is needed to guide future study design and to accelerate clinical translation. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE on 1 April 2019 returned 3131 unique entries of which 66 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies used ECFCs derived from umbilical cord or adult peripheral blood. Studies used genetically modified immunodeficient mice (n = 52) and/or rats (n = 16). ECFC phenotypes were inconsistently characterized. While >90% of studies used CD31+ and CD45-, CD14- was demonstrated in 73% of studies, CD146+ in 42%, and CD10+ in 35%. Most disease models invoked ischemia. Peripheral vascular ischemia (n = 29), central nervous system ischemia (n = 14), connective tissue injury (n = 10), and cardiovascular ischemia and reperfusion injury (n = 7) were studied most commonly. Studies showed predominantly positive results; only 13 studies reported ≥1 outcome with null results, three reported only null results, and one reported harm. Quality assessment with SYRCLE revealed potential sources of bias in most studies. Preclinical ECFC studies are associated with benefit across several ischemic conditions in animal models, although combining results is limited by marked heterogeneity in study design. In particular, characterization of ECFCs varied and aspects of reporting introduced risk of bias in most studies. More studies with greater focus on standardized cell characterization and consistency of the disease model are needed.

Indexed as

AdultAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalEndothelial Progenitor CellsHumansMiceNeovascularization, PhysiologicRatsRegenerative Medicinecontrolled studiesECFCspreclinicalregenerative medicinesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32681814
PMCPMC7581447
OpenAlexW3042959261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.