Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38576751›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of transplantation2024

Current status and future perspectives on stem cell transplantation for spinal cord injury.

Edoardo Agosti, Marco Zeppieri, Andrea Pagnoni, Marco Maria Fontanella, Alessandro Fiorindi, Tamara Ius, Pier Paolo Panciani

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of transplantation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edoardo AgostiDivision of Neu rosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia 25123, Italy.
Marco ZeppieriDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy. markzeppieri@hotmail.com.
Andrea PagnoniDivision of Neu rosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia 25123, Italy.
Marco Maria FontanellaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia 25123, BS, Italy.
Alessandro FiorindiDivision of Neu rosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia 25123, Italy.
Tamara IusNeurosurgery Unit, Head-Neck and NeuroScience Department, University Hospital of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy.
Pier Paolo PancianiDivision of Neu rosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia 25123, Italy.
University of Brescia · ITUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious assessments of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries (SCI) have encountered challenges and constraints. Current research primarily emphasizes safety in early-phase clinical trials, while systematic reviews prioritize effectiveness, often overlooking safety and translational feasibility. This situation prompts inquiries regarding the readiness for clinical adoption.

aimTo offer an up-to-date systematic literature review of clinical trial results con cerning stem cell therapy for SCI.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across major medical databases [PubMed, Embase, Reference Citation Analysis (RCA), and Cochrane Library] up to October 14, 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to "spinal cord", "injury", "clinical trials", "stem cells", "functional outcomes", and "adverse events". Studies included in this review consisted of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the use of stem cell therapies for the treatment of SCI.

resultsIn a comprehensive review of 66 studies on stem cell therapies for SCI, 496 papers were initially identified, with 237 chosen for full-text analysis. Among them, 236 were deemed eligible after excluding 170 for various reasons. These studies encompassed 1086 patients with varying SCI levels, with cervical injuries being the most common (42.2%). Bone marrow stem cells were the predominant stem cell type used (71.1%), with various administration methods. Follow-up durations averaged around 84.4 months. The 32.7% of patients showed functional impro vement from American spinal injury association Impairment Scale (AIS) A to B, 40.8% from AIS A to C, 5.3% from AIS A to D, and 2.1% from AIS B to C. Sensory improvements were observed in 30.9% of patients. A relatively small number of adverse events were recorded, including fever (15.1%), headaches (4.3%), muscle tension (3.1%), and dizziness (2.6%), highlighting the potential for SCI recovery with stem cell therapy.

conclusionIn the realm of SCI treatment, stem cell-based therapies show promise, but clinical trials reveal potential adverse events and limitations, underscoring the need for meticulous optimization of transplantation conditions and parameters, caution against swift clinical implementation, a deeper understanding of SCI pathophysiology, and addressing ethical, tumorigenicity, immunogenicity, and immunotoxicity concerns before gradual and careful adoption in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Adverse eventsFunctional outcomesSpinal cord injuryStem cell therapySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38576751
PMCPMC10989472
OpenAlexW4392869611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.