ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Stem cell therapy for degenerative disc disease: A systematic review of preclinical evidence, clinical translation, and future directions.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolving Landscape of Regenerative Therapies: Cell-Based and Cell-Free Approaches for Chronic Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a leading contributor to chronic low back pain and global disability. Existing therapies, from conservative management to spinal fusion, do not reverse the underlying molecular degeneration, leaving a critical treatment gap. Given its regenerative capabilities the advent of stem-cell therapy may constitute an ideal solution to fulfill such a therapeutic gap. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review evaluates stem cell-based strategies for intervertebral disc regeneration by examining preclinical evidence, clinical translation, and future directions. Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and related databases (from January 2000-May 2025) identified studies reporting on pain (Visual Analogue Scale), function (Oswestry Disability Index), and structural outcomes (MRI). Results: Preclinical models uniformly demonstrate meaningful regeneration, including restoration of disc height and extracellular matrix. Clinical evidence, however, is limited: thirteen low to moderate-quality trials show modest, albeit statistically significant, improvements in pain and disability, without compelling imaging proof of biological repair. Short to mid-term safety appears acceptable. Conclusions: The use of stem-cell therapy for treatment of degenerative disc disease is constrained by the somewhat hostile and avascular microenvironment of the intervertebral disc. Existing trials exhibit significant methodological weaknesses which substantially impair their application to the daily clinical practice. Future progress will likely depend on incorporating biomaterial-assisted delivery systems, cell-free exosome approaches, biological scaffolds and gene-editing technologies aimed at engineering the disc niche rather than simply focusing on cell replacement.
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.