ReviewFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2022
From Vial to Vein: Crucial Gaps in Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Clinical Trial Reporting.
Review in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of cell therapy for COVID-19: global clinical trial landscape, published safety/efficacy outcomes, cell product manufacturing and clinical delivery.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Research advances in cryopreserved preparations of mesenchymal stem cells: technical innovations, application challenges, and quality control.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Dimethyl sulfoxide in cryopreserved mesenchymal stromal cell therapy products: is there a safety risk to patients?Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- The issue of heterogeneity of MSC-based advanced therapy medicinal products-a review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Umbilical cord blood derived cellular therapy: advances in clinical development.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- The Art of Stem Cell-Based Therapy.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- The Evolving Landscape of Potency Assays.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Optimal Intravenous Administration Procedure for Efficient Delivery of Canine Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retrospective analysis of clinical trial outcomes is a vital exercise to facilitate efficient translation of cellular therapies. These analyses are particularly important for mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) products. The exquisite responsiveness of MSCs, which makes them attractive candidates for immunotherapies, is a double-edged sword; MSC clinical trials result in inconsistent outcomes that may correlate with underlying patient biology or procedural differences at trial sites. Here we review 45 North American MSC clinical trial results published between 2015 and 2021 to assess whether these reports provide sufficient information for retrospective analysis. Trial reports routinely specify the MSC tissue source, autologous or allogeneic origin and administration route. However, most methodological aspects related to cell preparation and handling immediately prior to administration are under-reported. Clinical trial reports inconsistently provide information about cryopreservation media composition, delivery vehicle, post-thaw time and storage until administration, duration of infusion, and pre-administration viability or potency assessments. In addition, there appears to be significant variability in how cell products are formulated, handled or assessed between trials. The apparent gaps in reporting, combined with high process variability, are not sufficient for retrospective analyses that could potentially identify optimal cell preparation and handling protocols that correlate with successful intra- and inter-trial outcomes. The substantial preclinical data demonstrating that cell handling affects MSC potency highlights the need for more comprehensive clinical trial reporting of MSC conditions from expansion through delivery to support development of globally standardized protocols to efficiently advance MSCs as commercial products.
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.