ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2024
Comparative breakthrough: Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) on Alzheimer's Disease: Review of Clinical Results.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026Review
- MSC-Derived Secretome and Exosomes in Dermatology: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Opportunities, and Scientific Challenges-A Narrative Review.International journal of dermatology · 2026Review
- Exploring Compositions of Cell-Based Therapies for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment: A Review of Clinical Studies.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Osteosarcopenia in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A narrative review of mortality and frailty implications.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- From surgery to recovery: Measuring success through quality of life and functional improvements after cardiac surgery.World journal of cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from bone marrow (BM-MSCs) and umbilical cord (UC-MSCs) in the treatment of heart failure and myocardial infarction. MSCs have gained importance as living bio drug due to their regenerative potential, with BM-MSCs being the most extensively studied. However, UC-MSCs offer unique advantages, such as noninvasive collection and fewer ethical concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes data from 13 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 693 patients. Their study shows that UC-MSCs significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction by 5.08% at 6 months and 2.78% at 12 months compared with controls, while BM-MSCs showed no significant effect. Neither cell type showed significant changes in 6-minute walk distance. In addition, UC-MSCs and BM-MSCs had comparable safety profiles, with no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events, except for a lower rehospitalization rate observed with BM-MSCs. These results position UC-MSCs as a promising alternative in MSC-based therapies for cardiac disease, offering potential improvements in cardiac function while maintaining a favorable safety profile. Future research should focus on optimizing administration protocols and further exploring the long-term benefits and mechanisms of UC-MSCs in cardiac repair.
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.