ReviewNeurology research international2026
The Reparative Mechanisms Underlying Preclinical Neural Stem/Progenitor Cell Therapy for Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review.
Review in Neurology research international, 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.
- The Reparative Mechanisms Underlying Preclinical Neural Stem/Progenitor Cell Therapy for Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review.Neurology research international · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ischemic stroke is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Current treatments, such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, restore perfusion but do not promote tissue repair, highlighting the need for regenerative therapies. Neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) have been extensively explored in preclinical models; however, the mechanisms underlying their therapeutic effects remain incompletely defined. Methods: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines to address the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie the neurorestorative effects of transplanted NSPCs in animal models of ischemic stroke. Preclinical studies published between 2013 and 2023 were identified through PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies compared NSPC monotherapy with vehicle-treated controls, and data on transplantation protocols and functional, histological, and biochemical outcomes were extracted for narrative synthesis. Of the 8697 records identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria, with moderate methodological quality (median CAMARADES score: 6/10; range: 3-8). Results: NSPC transplantation significantly improved motor, sensory, and cognitive function while reducing infarct volume, neuronal apoptosis, neuroinflammation, and blood-brain barrier disruption, alongside increased neurotrophic and angiogenic factors (BDNF, GDNF, VEGF, and Ang-1) and modulation of inflammatory mediators. Functional recovery was more consistently associated with paracrine and immunomodulatory mechanisms than with direct neuronal replacement, which occurred less frequently and was often accompanied by astrocytic or oligodendroglial differentiation; astrocytic responses were conflicting, suggesting context-dependent effects. These preclinical mechanisms have not been consistently replicated in early-phase human trials, pointing to immunogenicity and delivery route as key translational barriers. Conclusion: The reparative benefits of NSPC therapy in ischemic stroke are largely attributable to paracrine and immunomodulatory mechanisms, with neuronal replacement playing a minor role. Future studies should focus on strategies to potentiate paracrine activity, improve graft survival, and adopt translationally relevant, comorbidity-inclusive models to advance clinical translation.
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.