Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181451›Full record

ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025

Umbilical cord blood: a comprehensive review of protective and restorative properties in clinical applications - a narrative review.

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Obeagu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Emmanuel Ifeanyi ObeaguDepartment of Biomedical and Laboratory Science, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4538-0161

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Umbilical cord blood has emerged as a valuable biological resource rich in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, offering promising therapeutic potential in regenerative medicine, hematologic disorders, and immune modulation. Compared to bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cells, UCB demonstrates several clinical advantages, including lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), increased tolerance for human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch, and rapid availability. Transplantation success rates with UCB have improved significantly, with recent studies reporting overall survival rates of 60-70% in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and 55-65% in adult recipients, particularly in malignant conditions. The incidence of acute GVHD following UCB transplantation ranges from 20% to 40%, while chronic GVHD occurs in approximately 10-20% of cases - lower than rates observed with other stem cell sources. Moreover, UCB-derived stem cells are being investigated for their regenerative and immunomodulatory capabilities in conditions such as cerebral palsy, type 1 diabetes, and ischemic injury, with early-phase trials showing encouraging safety and efficacy profiles. Despite these advancements, disparities in cost-effectiveness and accessibility remain pressing issues. Public cord blood banks offer greater equity in access and have facilitated most unrelated transplants, whereas private banks, often costly, primarily serve families for autologous use with limited clinical indication. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the biological underpinnings, clinical applications, and outcomes associated with UCB-based therapies, while highlighting ongoing challenges in global access, standardization, and therapeutic scalability.

Indexed as

immunomodulationneuroprotectionregenerative medicinestem cell therapyumbilical cord blood

Identifiers

PMID41181451
PMCPMC12577836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.