ReviewNeurosurgery2021
Cell Therapy for Stroke: A Mechanistic Analysis.
Review in Neurosurgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical trials and advanced MRI techniques with stem cell therapy for ischemic stroke: present and future perspectives.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Anti-stroke biologics: from recombinant proteins to stem cells and organoids.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2024Review
- The role of neuron-like cell lines and primary neuron cell models in unraveling the complexity of neurodegenerative diseases: a comprehensive review.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Non-human primate models of focal cortical ischemia for neuronal replacement therapy.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2023Review
- Human umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells ameliorate ischemic brain injury via promoting microglia/macrophages M2 polarization in MCAO Rats.Experimental brain research · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cell therapy has been widely recognized as a promising strategy to enhance recovery in stroke survivors. However, despite an abundance of encouraging preclinical data, successful clinical translation remains elusive. As the field continues to advance, it is important to reexamine prior clinical trials in the context of their intended mechanisms, as this can inform future preclinical and translational efforts. In the present work, we review the major clinical trials of cell therapy for stroke and highlight a mechanistic shift between the earliest studies, which aimed to replace dead and damaged neurons, and later ones that focused on exploiting the various neuromodulatory effects afforded by stem cells. We discuss why both mechanisms are worth pursuing and emphasize the means through which cell replacement can still be achieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.