ReviewStem cells translational medicine2026
The global regulatory landscape of stem cell medical aesthetics: challenges, comparisons, and pathways to coordination.
Review in Stem cells translational medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper systematically examines the regulatory frameworks of major regulatory bodies-including the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and China-regarding the use of stem cells and their derivatives (such as conditioned media and exosomes) for cosmetic purposes. Despite the rapid global growth of "stem cell medical aesthetics" within the cosmetic medical market, its scientific evidence remains insufficient, and it faces the core challenge of inconsistent regulatory systems. Through in-depth comparative analysis, this paper not only reveals profound differences among nations in risk perception, regulatory philosophy, and terminology definitions, but also dissects the resulting market fragmentation and patient safety risks. Based on this, the paper proposes feasible pathways to advance international regulatory coordination: The primary task is to unify core definitions and classification standards (especially for derivatives like exosomes) based on scientific consensus, and establish a risk-based tiered regulatory mechanism that clearly distinguishes medical from cosmetic applications. Concurrently, fundamental research should be strengthened and specific efficacy assessment standards (e.g., instrument measurements and patient-reported outcomes) should be developed. Crucially, this paper advocates for a hybrid regulatory model integrating conditional approval with real-world evidence tracking as a pragmatic solution balancing patient safety and technological innovation. This research aims to provide theoretical support and practical guidance for constructing a global governance framework that safeguards safety while accommodating innovation efficiency.
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.