Trial reportWorld journal of clinical pediatrics2025
Autologous cord blood
Trial report in World journal of clinical pediatrics, 2025. 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
backgroundCellular therapies have started an important new therapeutic direction in autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), and the ample diversity of ASD pathophysiology and the different types of cell therapies prompt an equally ample effort to employ clinical studies for studying the ASD causes and cell therapies. Stem cells have yielded so far mixed results in clinical trials, and at patient level the results varied from impressive to no improvement. In this context we have administered autologous cord blood (ACB) and a non-placebo, material intervention represented by an individualized combination of supplements (ICS) to ASD children.
aimTo compare the efficacy of ACB
methodsCORDUS clinical study is a crossover study in which both oral ICS and intravenous ACB were sequentially administered to 56 children; ACB was infused as an inpatient procedure. Treatment efficacy was evaluated pre-treatment and post-treatment at 6 months by an independent psychotherapist with Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist, Quantitative Checklist for Autism in Toddlers and a 16-item comparative table score, after interviewing the children's parents and therapists. Before and after each intervention participants had a set of blood tests including inflammatory, metabolic and oxidative markers, and the neuronal specific enolase.
resultsNo serious adverse reactions were noted during and after cord blood or supplement administration. ACB improved evaluation scores in 78% of children with age 3-7-years (
conclusionACB has superior efficacy to ICS in ASD; high inflammation, ferritin, age and body weight predict less improvement; more clinical studies are needed for studying ACB efficacy in ASD.
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.