ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2021
Regenerative medicine for anal incontinence: a review of regenerative therapies beyond cells.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stem Cells in Clinical Trials for Pelvic Floor Disorders: a Systematic Literature Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Pooled it
- Anal sphincter reconstruction for fecal incontinence: Techniques, outcomes, and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- The Effect of Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Adipose Tissue Derived Stem Cells, and Cellular Stromal Vascular Fraction on the Repair of Acute Anal Sphincter Injury in Rats.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Iron Oxide Nanoparticles in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisCurrent treatment modalities for anal sphincter injuries are ineffective for many patients, prompting research into restorative and regenerative therapies. Although cellular therapy with stem cells and progenitor cells show promise in animal models with short-term improvement, there are additional regenerative approaches that can augment or replace cellular therapies for anal sphincter injuries. The purpose of this article is to review the current knowledge of cellular therapies for anal sphincter injuries and discusses the use of other regenerative therapies including cytokine therapy with CXCL12.
methodsA literature search was performed to search for articles on cellular therapy and cytokine therapy for anal sphincter injuries and anal incontinence.
resultsThe article search identified 337 articles from which 33 articles were included. An additional 12 referenced articles were included as well as 23 articles providing background information. Cellular therapy has shown positive results for treating anal sphincter injuries and anal incontinence in vitro and in one clinical trial. However, cellular therapy has disadvantages such as the source and processing of stem cells and progenitor cells. CXCL12 does not have such issues while showing promising in vitro results for treating anal sphincter injuries. Additionally, electrical stimulation and extracorporeal shock wave therapy are potential regenerative medicine adjuncts for anal sphincter injuries. A vision for future research and clinical applications of regenerative medicine for anal sphincter deficiencies is provided.
conclusionThere are viable regenerative medicine therapies for anal sphincter injuries beyond cellular therapy. CXCL12 shows promise as a focus of therapeutic research in this field.
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.