ReviewStem cells translational medicine2024
The evolution and ongoing challenge of unproven cell-based interventions.
Review in Stem cells translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation epidermal patches: Bridging 3D and multidimensional printing for biomedical and personal care innovations.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- From Single-cell Heterogeneity to Regenerative-medicine Accountability: A Global Readiness Passport for Stem-Cell Products.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Article
- Therapeutic and Diagnostic Roles of MSC-Derived Exosomes in Alzheimer's Disease.Brain and behavior · 2025Review
- Toward equitable regenerative medicine: a health equity research framework for emerging regenerative treatments.Regenerative medicine · 2025Review
- A Highway for Disinformation? The Alarming Exodus of Scientists from Twitter/X and its Consequences.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Unproven cell-based interventions (CBIs) emerged early in the 2000s as a particularly problematic form of unproven therapy and remain a vexing policy problem to this day. These unproven interventions can harm patients both physically and financially and can complicate the process of developing a rigorous evidence base to support the translation of novel stem cell or other cell therapies. In this concise review, we examine the emergence of unproven CBIs and the various policy approaches that have been pursued or proposed to address this problem. We review the evolution of this field over the last 2 decades and explore why these policy efforts have proven challenging. We conclude by highlighting potential directions that the field could evolve and urging continued attention to both current and future forms of unproven CBIs to minimize future risks to patients and the field and to promote the development of evidence-based cell therapies.
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.