ReviewCytotechnology2026
Effects of electrical stimulation on the cardiogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells: A systematic review.
Review in Cytotechnology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical stimulation has emerged as a promising strategy for promoting cardiogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells; however, the available evidence remains highly heterogeneous across stimulation parameters, experimental platforms, and outcome measures. This systematic review synthesized the available in vitro evidence regarding the effects of electrical stimulation on MSC cardiogenic differentiation, with particular emphasis on stimulation parameters, experimental platforms and biological outcomes related to early cardiogenic commitment and structural maturation. A systematic search was conducted in seven electronic databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fifteen preclinical in vitro studies met the eligibility criteria. Human-derived MSCs were the most frequently investigated cell source and carbon-based electrodes were the most commonly reported conductive material. Across the included studies, electrical stimulation was frequently associated with morphological changes and increased expression of markers related to early cardiogenic commitment and structural maturation, although findings were inconsistent for some outcomes. A stimulation frequency of 1 Hz, pulse widths of 5 ms, and stimulation periods of approximately two weeks were the most frequently employed conditions. Nevertheless, substantial heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, experimental platforms and outcome measures precluded direct comparisons among studies and prevented identification of an optimal stimulation protocol. Overall, the available evidence suggests that electrical stimulation may represent a promising strategy for promoting the cardiogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in vitro; however, greater methodological standardization, standardized outcome assessment and functional characterization are required before definitive conclusions regarding its effectiveness and optimal stimulation protocols can be established. Graphical abstract: Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-026-01065-w.
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.