SynthesisCerebellum (London, England)2026
Cell-Based Therapies for Spinocerebellar Degenerations: A Systematic Review of Human Clinical Evidence.
Synthesis in Cerebellum (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
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
Spinocerebellar degenerations (SCDs) are progressive hereditary and selected sporadic cerebellar neurodegenerative disorders with limited disease-modifying options. Cell-based therapies particularly, mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs), neural stem/progenitor cells, olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs), cord blood mononuclear cells (CBMCs), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are biologically plausible candidates, but their clinical efficacy and safety remain uncertain. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to 10 October 2025 (no language restrictions). The OSF-registered protocol prespecified eligibility, outcomes, and design-specific risk-of-bias (RoB) tools, with harmonized overall RoB judgments. We included human interventional or observational reports of cell-based or cell-derived products in hereditary ataxias and selected cerebellar-predominant degenerative syndromes within the OPCA/MSA-C spectrum, and extracted clinical efficacy, safety, and follow-up. Of 603 records screened, 17 reports met the protocol-defined inclusion criteria (15 full texts; 2 abstracts; 2006–2025). Most were small, uncontrolled case series, predominantly from China. Cell types: MSCs (9/17), HSCT in ataxia-telangiectasia (3/17), OECs (3/17), and others (neural stem cells [NSCs], CBMCs; 2/17). Routes were intrathecal and/or intravenous for MSC/CBMC; OEC/NSC were intracerebral/intraspinal; HSCT was delivered intravenously. Primary follow-up was typically 1–6 months. Safety was generally acceptable for MSC/CBMC/OEC with no treatment-related deaths and mostly transient post-procedural symptoms; HSCT exhibited regimen-related toxicities consistent with conditioning intensity. Efficacy signals were modest and often transient: short-term International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) improvements were reported across multiple series. Cell-based therapies for SCDs show biological plausibility and generally reassuring short-term safety, but current human evidence, dominated by uncontrolled, high-bias studies does not establish efficacy or durability. Priority should shift to rigorously controlled trials, standardized good manufacturing practice (GMP)-characterized products, blinded centralized ratings, careful control of co-interventions, and objective biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41968234What 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.