ReviewCells2026
Not All Extracellular Vesicles Are Equal: A Narrative Comparative Review of Source-Dependent Function and Therapeutic Potential.
Review in Cells, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are increasingly investigated as cell-free therapeutic platforms, yet EVs from different cellular sources are often considered functionally interchangeable despite substantial biological heterogeneity. This narrative comparative review evaluated how EV source influences molecular cargo, phenotype, biological function, therapeutic suitability, safety, and translational potential. PubMed/MEDLINE, Europe PMC, and OpenAlex were searched from inception through 14 August 2026, supplemented by targeted Google Scholar and backward and forward citation searching. Of the 9779 database records identified, 3799 duplicates were removed and 5980 unique records were screened. Sixty-seven database studies and three additional studies identified through supplementary searching met the criteria for direct within-study comparison of EVs from distinct parental cell or tissue sources. Across the 70 direct comparisons, source-associated differences in cargo, phenotype, target-cell responses, and therapeutic performance were frequently reported; however, the depth and consistency of supporting evidence varied substantially across source families and indications, with activity further influenced by cellular state, engineering, vesicle fraction, isolation method, and dose. Based on these findings, we propose EV-FIT+-Function, Indication, Trade-off, and Contra-Function-as an author-developed qualitative framework for rational EV source selection. No EV source is universally superior; therapeutic suitability depends on matching source- and product-specific biological characteristics and risks to the intended clinical objective.
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.