ReviewBasic and clinical neuroscience
Investigating the Therapeutics Effects of Oral Cavity Derived Stem Cells on Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review.
Review in Basic and clinical neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Published data obtained from in vitro and in vivo studies was reviewed systematically and analyzed critically to evaluate the effect of oral cavity-derived stem cells (OCDSCs) on the recovery or therapy of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), such as Alzheimer disease (AD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Huntington (HD) diseases, and Parkinson disease (PD). Methods: An electronic search was accomplished. References of included articles were also manually searched. Studies were critically evaluated for suitability against the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the data was extracted. Bias risk evaluation of the studies and evidence synthesis were conducted. Results: A total of 14 in vivo and 10 in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. PD was induced in 10 in vivo and 7 in vitro studies, while AD was induced in 2 in vivo and 4 in vitro studies. Two studies (1 in vitro and 1 in vivo) evaluated ALS disease and 1 in vivo study evaluated HD. Moderate evidence was found for in vitro studies reporting the positive effect of OCDSCs on PD or AD recovery. Strong evidence was found for in vivo studies in which PD animal models were used; meanwhile, moderate evidence was found for the impact of OCDSCs on AD recovery. Limited evidence was found for in vivo studies evaluating HD and ALS. Conclusion: Although studies reported favorable data regarding the OCDSCs on NDs, they presented a considerable risk of bias. Because of heterogeneous study characteristics, the current study recommends improving standardized methods to evaluate the therapeutic effects of OCDSCs on the NDs.
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.