ReviewCureus2021
Stem Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction: How Far Are We Now?
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mid- to long-term efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Cardiac Repair and Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Exploring New Frontiers in Regenerative Medicine.Current cardiology reviews · 2026Review
- Stem Cell Therapy for Myocardial Infarction Recovery: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Stem cell-derived exosome delivery systems for treating atherosclerosis: The new frontier of stem cell therapy.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Don't go breakin' my heart: cardioprotective alterations to the mechanical and structural properties of reperfused myocardium during post-infarction inflammation.Biophysical reviews · 2023Review
- Article
- Regenerative and molecular therapies for myocardial repair (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Poor functional recovery of the myocardium is noticed after an event of myocardial infarction. Researchers and clinicians around the world have been engaged to regenerate the damaged human heart for a long time. Stem cell therapy is an exciting newer therapy to treat cardiovascular diseases. Various types of stem cells have been used to revive the damaged myocardium after myocardial infarction, and they have overall demonstrated safety and moderate efficacy. The specific mechanisms by which these cells help in improving cardiac function are still not completely known. There is growing evidence that intracoronary bone marrow cell transplantation in patients with myocardial infarction beneficially affects the remodeling of the damaged myocardium. Our systematic review article aims to assess the effects and the future of stem cell therapy in patients with myocardial Infarction. We searched articles in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Thirty-one studies that included 2171 patients in total were analyzed. Most of these studies showed stem cell therapy is safe and well tolerated in patients, and modest improvements are seen in left ventricular functions with no major adverse effects. However, some studies showed no positive and clinically significant outcomes. So, more high-quality studies on a larger scale are required to support and confirm its efficacy in remodeling damaged myocardium after myocardial infarction. We should also perform studies to determine the timing of cell delivery that is best suited for stem cell therapy.
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.