ReviewRegenerative therapy2025
Stem cell therapy for bladder regeneration: A comprehensive systematic review.
Review in Regenerative therapy, 2025. 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.
- The engineered bladder patch with a three-layer structure promotes the regeneration and functional recovery of the bladder in a rabbit model.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
- Stem Cell-Based Strategies for Fibrotic and Neurogenic Bladder Disorders: Current Evidence, Translational Challenges, and Future Directions.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Animal models of spinal cord injury in neuro-urological research.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Biomaterials and Nanomedicine for Mucosal Repair and Inflammation Control in Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: An Extensive Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Stem cell therapy for urethra and ureter tissue engineering: A systematic literature review on animal studies.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tissue engineering has been considered a potential choice for urinary system reconstruction. Here, we aim to a broad spectrum of employed stem cells in bladder regeneration by performing a comprehensive systematic review. In January 2024, we searched Scopus, PubMed, and Embase databases for studies that tried bladder regeneration by tissue engineering using stem cells. We excluded non-English studies, review articles, and manuscripts that met the other exclusion criteria. Among 43 included studies, comparative studies demonstrated the similar or superior potentiality of stem cells to regenerate tissues and improve bladder function compared with autologous cells. Furthermore, data suggest an increased use of bio-synthetic scaffolds and their appropriate bio-compatibility with stem cells. The evidence establishes that adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells are the most frequently used stem cells. And both are suitable for urothelium and smooth muscle formation along with the capability of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells for lamina propria formation. Additionally, the competency of smooth muscle-derived progenitor cells, urine-derived stem cells, umbilical mesenchymal SCs for smooth muscle and urothelium regeneration, and the capability of hair follicle stem cells for smooth muscle formation are demonstrated. Also, the superiority of endothelial progenitor cells for neo-vascularization and smooth muscle progenitor cells for neuron formation are demonstrated. In addition to adding growth factors to the culturing media, hypoxic conditions and intra-peritoneal incubation are introduced as promoter conditions that can improve histological and physiological components. Available evidence is limited, although it suggests the precious capability of stem cells for bladder regeneration.
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.