ArticleStem cell reviews and reports2023
Evaluation of Endothelial Progenitor Cell Characteristics as Clinical Biomarkers for Elderly Patients with Ischaemic Stroke.
Article in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endothelial Progenitor Cells: Disease Markers and Potential Therapy in Kidney Disease.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025Review
- Bioinformatics Identification of angiogenesis-related biomarkers and therapeutic targets in cerebral ischemia-reperfusion.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comorbidities and Angiogenic Regulators Affect Endothelial Progenitor Cell Subtype Numbers in a Healthy Volunteer Control Group.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2024Article
- Immunological Profile and Markers of Endothelial Dysfunction in Elderly Patients with Cognitive Impairments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Review
- Analysis of endothelial progenitor cell subtypes as clinical biomarkers for elderly patients with ischaemic stroke.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ageing impairs endothelial function and predisposes the person to ischaemic stroke (IS). Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) repair endothelial damage and induce post-ischaemic neovascularisation. Given the prevalence of IS in older population, this study explored whether changes in EPC number and function may reliably predict the type or outcome of stroke in patients ≥ 65 years of age. For this, blood samples were collected once from healthy volunteers (HVs, n = 40) and four times (admission and days 7, 30 and 90 post-stroke) from participants with lacunar (n = 38) or cortical (n = 43) stroke. EPCs were counted with flow cytometry and defined as non-haematopoietic cells (CD45-) expressing markers for stemness (CD34 +), immaturity (CD133 +) and endothelial maturity (KDR +). Clonogenesis, tubulogenesis, migration and proliferation assays were performed as measures of EPC functionality. Biochemical profile of plasma inflammatory and angiogenic agents were studied using specific ELISAs. Primary outcome was disability or dependence on day 90 post-stroke, assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Compared to HVs, EPC numbers were higher in stroke patients at all time points studied, reaching significance at baseline and day 30. No differences in EPC counts and functionality were observed between lacunar and cortical stroke groups at any time. Plasma endostatin, PDGF-BB, TNF-α and VEGF levels were higher in stroke patients vs HVs. Patient outcome, evaluated by mRS on day 90 post-stroke, did not correlate with EPC count or functionality. Baseline EPC counts may serve as a diagnostic marker for stroke but fail to distinguish between different stroke subtypes and predict post-stroke outcome.
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.