ReviewNPJ Regenerative medicine2026
Stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles and artificial nanovesicles: a translational framework for cell-free wound repair.
Review in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Exosomes in Precision Oncology: A Framework for Clinical Utility and Biomedical Applications.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Extracellular Vesicles: Bridging the Translational Gap in Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic nonhealing wounds remain a major clinical challenge, driven by persistent inflammation, impaired angiogenesis, defective extracellular matrix remodeling, and incomplete functional restoration. While stem cell therapies can modulate these processes, their clinical use is limited by low engraftment, variability, and safety concerns. Stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (SC-EVs) and artificial nanovesicles (SC-ANVs) have emerged as cell-free alternatives that aim to capture key paracrine functions of stem cells. In this review, we evaluate these vesicle-based approaches within a problem-oriented framework linking molecular and cellular effects to clinically meaningful outcomes. SC-EVs and SC-ANVs influence inflammation, angiogenesis, and tissue regeneration in preclinical wound models; however, current evidence is largely limited to improvements in wound closure and histological parameters. We highlight that proof of concept for clinically relevant endpoints, such as durable function, reduced scarring, and recurrence prevention, remains insufficient. Key translational challenges, including delivery, dosing, and endpoint selection, are discussed, along with a framework for future studies required to establish therapeutic efficacy. Collectively, SC-EVs and SC-ANVs represent emerging platforms whose clinical potential depends on rigorous validation against defined clinical benchmarks.
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.