ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2026
Global clinical trial landscape of stem cell-based therapies for osteoarthritis: trends and translational implications.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide, yet disease-modifying treatments remain limited. This study aimed to map the global registry landscape of interventional clinical trials of stem cell-based therapies for OA and summarize temporal, geographic, and design trends. Methods: We conducted a systematic, registry-based landscape analysis of interventional clinical trials assessing stem cell therapies for osteoarthritis. Trial records were obtained from the Informa Pharmaprojects platform. Two researchers extracted and summarized trial characteristics, including year, phase, geographic distribution, target joint, cell source or type, autologous versus allogeneic strategy, administration route, outcome measures, and trial status. We then performed a descriptive trend analysis. Results: We identified a total of 224 eligible trials. The number of trials has steadily increased over time, with broad international participation. Most studies focused on knee osteoarthritis and used intra-articular administration. Mesenchymal stem cell-based products dominated, encompassing both autologous and allogeneic approaches, with growing attention to scalable allogeneic strategies. Primary endpoints were typically patient-reported pain and functional measures, while imaging and biomarker outcomes were often secondary. Published evidence syntheses suggest potential benefits in terms of pain and function, but conclusions are frequently limited by heterogeneity, risk of bias, and relatively short follow-up durations. Conclusion: The number of stem cell-based clinical trials for osteoarthritis is increasing globally, but heterogeneity in study designs and incomplete public reporting limit reliable conclusions about efficacy. Future research should prioritize standardizing products and protocols, employing more rigorous comparators and feasible blinding, extending follow-up periods, and ensuring transparent reporting to facilitate clinical translation.
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.