ReviewCanadian journal of physiology and pharmacology2021
After the storm: an objective appraisal of the efficacy of c-kit+ cardiac progenitor cells in preclinical models of heart disease.
Review in Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Phase II study of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells and c-kit positive cardiac cells, alone or in combination, in patients with ischaemic heart failure: the CCTRN CONCERT-HF trial.European journal of heart failure · 2021Trial
- Examining the potentials of stem cell therapy in reducing the burden of selected non-communicable diseases in Africa.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Review
- Cell Therapy in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Biologically derived epicardial patch induces macrophage mediated pathophysiologic repair in chronically infarcted swine hearts.Communications biology · 2023Article
- C-kitHeliyon · 2023Article
- Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptor Regulates Prosurvival and Angiogenic Properties of Cardiac Mesenchymal Stromal Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Repeated Intravenous Administration of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Produces Cumulative Beneficial Effects in Chronic Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2023Article
- Perfect duet: Dual recombinases improve genetic resolution.Cell proliferation · 2023Review
- Regeneration of the heart: from molecular mechanisms to clinical therapeutics.Military Medical Research · 2023Review
- Healing the Ischaemic Heart: A Critical Review of Stem Cell Therapies.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Cell-based therapy to boost right ventricular function and cardiovascular performance in hypoplastic left heart syndrome: Current approaches and future directions.Seminars in perinatology · 2023Review
- Paracrine effects of mir-210-3p on angiogenesis in hypoxia-treated c-kit-positive cardiac cells.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Recommendations for nomenclature and definition of cell products intended for human cardiovascular use.Cardiovascular research · 2022Article
- Stem cell-based therapy for human diseases.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022Review
- Myocardial regeneration protocols towards the routine clinical scenario: An unseemly path from bench to bedside.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
- Transplanted allogeneic cardiac progenitor cells secrete GDF-15 and stimulate an active immune remodeling process in the ischemic myocardium.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Cell therapy in patients with heart failure: a comprehensive review and emerging concepts.Cardiovascular research · 2022Review
- Effect of intravenous cell therapy in rats with old myocardial infarction.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2022Article
- The sad plight of cell therapy for heart failure: causes and consequences.The journal of cardiovascular aging · 2022Article
- Effects of Heme Oxygenase-1 on c-Kit-Positive Cardiac Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The falsification of data related to c-kit+ cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs) by a Harvard laboratory has been a veritable tragedy. Does this fraud mean that CPCs are not beneficial in models of ischemic cardiomyopathy? At least 50 studies from 26 laboratories independent of the Harvard group have reported beneficial effects of CPCs in mice, rats, pigs, and cats. The mechanism of action remains unclear. Our group has shown that CPCs do not engraft in the diseased heart, do not differentiate into new cardiac myocytes, do not regenerate dead myocardium, and thus work via paracrine mechanisms. A casualty of the misconduct at Harvard has been the SCIPIO trial, a collaboration between the Harvard group and the group in Louisville. The retraction of the SCIPIO paper was caused exclusively by issues with data generated at Harvard, not those generated in Louisville. In the retraction notice, the
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.