ArticleStem cell reports2021
Weighing up the evidence used by direct-to-consumer stem cell businesses.
Article in Stem cell reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- (Mis)trust among patients seeking unproven stem cell therapies: a qualitative analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation.Cytotherapy · 2024Article
- Ethical issues in direct-to-consumer healthcare: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Designing persuasive health education for patients seeking unproven stem cell interventions.Stem cell reports · 2023Article
- Uncovering the gray zone: mapping the global landscape of direct-to-consumer businesses offering interventions based on secretomes, extracellular vesicles, and exosomes.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Article
- Patients seeking stem cell therapies-a prospective qualitative analysis from a Regenerative Medicine Consult Service.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2022Article
- Opinion: Patient reported motivations for seeking stem cell therapy and considerations for counseling.Journal of orthopedics and orthopedic surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hundreds of businesses across the United States offer direct-to-consumer stem-cell-based interventions that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Here, we characterize the types of evidence used on the websites of 59 stem cell businesses in the Southwest United States to market their services. We identify over a dozen forms of evidence, noting that businesses are less likely to rely on "gold-standard" scientific evidence, like randomized clinical trials, and instead draw substantially on forms of evidence that we identify as being "ambiguous." Ambiguous evidence has some scientific or medical basis, but its interpretation is highly context-dependent. These findings highlight the interpretive responsibility placed on prospective patients. We identify actions for regulators and professional societies to assist with evaluating evidence, but caution that focusing on the (in)validity of particular evidence types is unlikely to eliminate demand for stem-cell-based treatments in this complex marketplace.
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.