Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32765614›Full record

ReviewStem cells international2020

Corneal Stem Cells as a Source of Regenerative Cell-Based Therapy.

Jasmin S Nurković, Radiša Vojinović, Zana Dolićanin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Cell and Gene Therapy in Equine Ocular Disease.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Transforming meat waste into sustainable corneal keratoplasty models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Corneal stromal regeneration-keratoconus cell therapy: a review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jasmin S NurkovićCenter for Regeneration and Rehabilitation, Novi Pazar, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6369-6285
Radiša VojinovićFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia.
Zana DolićaninDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, State University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Serbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past few years, intensive research has focused on corneal stem cells as an unlimited source for cell-based therapy in regenerative ophthalmology. Today, it is known that the cornea has at least two types of stem cells: limbal epithelial stem cells (LESCs) and corneal stromal stem cells (CSSCs). LESCs are used for regeneration of corneal surface, while CSSCs are used for regeneration of corneal stroma. Until now, various approaches and methods for isolation of LESCs and CSSCs and their successful transplantation have been described and tested in several preclinical studies and clinical trials. This review describes in detail phenotypic characteristics of LESCs and CSSCs and discusses their therapeutic potential in corneal regeneration. Since efficient and safe corneal stem cell-based therapy is still a challenging issue that requires continuous cooperation between researchers, clinicians, and patients, this review addresses the important limitations and suggests possible strategies for improvement of corneal stem cell-based therapy.

Identifiers

PMID32765614
PMCPMC7388005

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.