ArticleESC heart failure2021
Reparative cell therapy for the heart: critical internal appraisal of the field in response to recent controversies.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for myocardial infarction and heart failure: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Heart-derived endogenous stem cells.Molecular biology reports · 2025Review
- Unraveling the aging-reversal potency of stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in a rat model of premature cardiac senescence.iScience · 2025Article
- Regeneration of the heart: from molecular mechanisms to clinical therapeutics.Military Medical Research · 2023Review
- Myocardial regeneration protocols towards the routine clinical scenario: An unseemly path from bench to bedside.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
- Cardiovascular Diseases in the Digital Health Era: A Translational Approach from the Lab to the Clinic.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2022Review
- Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Endomyocardial Cell Therapy in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure by Combination of Individual Patient Data (IPD) of ACCRUE and Publication-Based Aggregate Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Mass Customized Outlook for Regenerative Heart Failure Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Cardiac Extracellular Matrix Hydrogel Enriched with Polyethylene Glycol Presents Improved Gelation Time and Increased On-Target Site Retention of Extracellular Vesicles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Reparative cell therapy for the heart: critical internal appraisal of the field in response to recent controversies.ESC heart failure · 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
20 authors at 18 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept that cell-based repair of myocardial injury might be possible was introduced almost two decades ago; however, the field of cardiovascular reparative medicine has been criticized as translation to clinically effective approaches has been slow. The recent retraction of a series of papers has further impacted perception of this area of research. As researchers, clinicians, and teachers in this field, we felt it incumbent to critically appraise the current state of cardiac cell repair, determine what can be learned from past mistakes, and formulate best practices for future work. This special communication summarizes an introspective assessment of what has fallen short, how to prevent similar issues, and how the field might best move forward in the service of science and patients.
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.