Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34901292›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

High Variability of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Obtained via Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Compared With Traditional Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique.

Ava Brozovich, Brent J Sinicrope, Guillermo Bauza, Federica Banche Niclot, David Lintner, Francesca Taraballi, Patrick C McCulloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Demographic Factors Affect the BMAC Proteome.Journal of proteome research · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Ava BrozovichTexas A&M College of Medicine, Bryan, Texas, USA.
Brent J SinicropeOrthopaedic Surgery, King's Daughters' Health, Madison, Indiana, USA.
Guillermo BauzaCenter for NanoHealth, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Federica Banche NiclotDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Polytechnic of Turin, Turin, Italy.
David LintnerOrthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Francesca TaraballiCenter for Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas, USA.
Patrick C McCullochOrthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBone marrow aspirate (BMA) is a common source for harvesting mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), other progenitor cells, and associated cytokines and growth factors to be used in the biologic treatment of various orthopaedic pathologies. The aspirate is commonly centrifuged into a concentrated volume that can be immediately administered to a patient using commercially available kits. However, the handling and efficacy of BMA concentrate (BMAC) are still controversial. PURPOSE: To characterize BMA versus BMAC for MSC quantity, potency, and cytokine profile. STUDY

designControlled laboratory study.

methodsFrom 8 participants (age, 17-68 years), 30 mL of bone marrow was aspirated by a single surgeon from either the proximal humerus or distal femur and was separated into 2 equal samples. One sample was kept as BMA, and the other half was centrifuged into BMAC. The 2 samples then underwent flow cytometry for detection of MSCs, cell analysis for colony-forming units (CFUs), and cytokine profiling. A 2-tailed

resultsThe average concentration of MSCs in both BMA and BMAC was 0.001%. Average MSC events detected by flow cytometry were significantly higher in BMA versus BMAC (15.1 and 8.1, respectively;

conclusionThere is great variability in MSC concentration, total protein concentration, and cytokine profile between BMA and BMAC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When studying the clinical efficacy of BMAC, one must also evaluate the sample itself to determine the presence, concentration, and potency of MSCs if this is to be considered a cell-based therapy. Further standard operating procedures need to be investigated to ensure reproducible results and appropriate treatments.

Indexed as

BMABMACbone marrowMSC

Identifiers

PMID34901292
PMCPMC8655450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.