Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34158116›Full record

ReviewStem cell research & therapy2021

Characterisation of mesenchymal stromal cells in clinical trial reports: analysis of published descriptors.

Alison J Wilson, Emma Rand, Andrew J Webster, Paul G Genever

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell research & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Alison J WilsonDepartment of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. ajw638@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9438-7802
Emma RandDepartment of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Andrew J WebsterScience and Technology Studies Unit, Department of Sociology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Paul G GeneverDepartment of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Funding

Versus Arthritis 21156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMesenchymal stem or stromal cells are the most widely used cell therapy to date. They are heterogeneous, with variations in growth potential, differentiation capacity and protein expression profile depending on tissue source and production process. Nomenclature and defining characteristics have been debated for almost 20 years, yet the generic term 'MSC' is used to cover a wide range of cellular phenotypes. Against a documented lack of definition of cellular populations used in clinical trials, our study evaluated the extent of characterisation of the cellular population or study drug.

methodsA literature search of clinical trials involving mesenchymal stem/stromal cells was refined to 84 papers upon application of pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were extracted covering background trial information including location, phase, indication, tissue source and details of clinical cell population characterisation (expression of surface markers, viability, differentiation assays and potency/functionality assays). Descriptive statistics were applied, and tests of association between groups were explored using Fisher's exact test for count data with simulated p value.

resultsTwenty-eight studies (33.3%) include no characterisation data. Forty-five (53.6%) reported average values per marker for all cell lots used in the trial, and 11 (13.1%) studies included individual values per cell lot. Viability was reported in 57% of studies. Differentiation was discussed: osteogenesis (29% of papers), adipogenesis (27%), and chondrogenesis (20%) and other functional assays arose in 7 papers (8%). The extent of characterisation was not related to the clinical phase of development. Assessment of functionality was very limited and did not always relate to the likely mechanism of action.

conclusionsThe extent of characterisation was poor and variable. Our findings concur with those in other fields including bone marrow aspirate and platelet-rich plasma therapy. We discuss the potential implications of these findings for the use of mesenchymal stem or stromal cells in regenerative medicine, and the importance of characterisation for transparency and comparability of literature.

Indexed as

Mesenchymal Stem CellsAdipogenesisBone Marrow CellsCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCells, CulturedChondrogenesisOsteogenesisCell therapyCharacterisationClinical trialMesenchymal stem cellsMesenchymal stromal cellsRegenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID34158116
PMCPMC8220718

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.