Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32983575›Full record

ArticleNPJ Regenerative medicine2020

Global trends in clinical trials involving pluripotent stem cells: a systematic multi-database analysis.

Julia Deinsberger, David Reisinger, Benedikt Weber

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Stem cell therapies for diabetes.Nature medicine · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia Deinsberger *Disease Modeling and Organoid Technology (DMOT) Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4237-1526
David Reisinger *Disease Modeling and Organoid Technology (DMOT) Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Benedikt WeberDisease Modeling and Organoid Technology (DMOT) Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7217-4590
Medical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 30615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) hold great potential for novel therapeutic approaches to regenerate or replace functionally impaired tissues. Since the introduction of the induced pluripotent stem cell technology in 2006, the number of scientific publications on this topic has constantly been increasing. However, so far no therapy based on PSCs has found its way into routine clinical use. In this study, we examined research trends related to clinical trials involving PSCs based on data obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov, the ICTRP database from the World Health Organization, as well as from a search of all individual databases that are included in the ICTRP using a multistep search algorithm. Following a stringent inclusion/exclusion procedure 131 studies remained that could be classified as clinical trials involving PSCs. The magnitude of these studies (77.1%) was observational, which implies that no cells were transplanted into patients, and only a minority of studies (22.9%) were of an interventional study type. The number of clinical trials involving induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs, 74.8%) was substantially higher than the one involving embryonic stem cells (ESCs, 25.2%). However, the picture changes completely when focusing on interventional studies, where in the majority (73.3%) of cases ESCs were used. Interestingly, also the study duration was significantly shorter for interventional versus observational trials (

Indexed as

Embryonic stem cellsInduced pluripotent stem cells

Identifiers

PMID32983575
PMCPMC7486930
OpenAlexW3045676218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.