ArticleFrontiers in genetics2026
Knowledge and attitude of Malaysian university students towards regenerative medicine therapy and their clinical implications: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regenerative medicine therapy (RMT) is an emerging field in Malaysia with significant potential for tissue regeneration and disease treatment. Yet awareness of its importance and the benefits of stem cell therapy remains limited, owing to a lack of in-depth knowledge of RMT among Malaysians. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of students at public and private universities in Malaysia regarding regenerative medicine therapy and its clinical implications. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 480 medical and non-medical students from Malaysian public and private universities. Six content experts validated the questionnaire, and the appropriateness of each question was rated using an item content validity index (I-CVI). The survey was divided into distinct sections covering demographics, previous experience with RMT, knowledge of RMT development and therapeutic applications (scored binary as 0 or 1), and attitudes towards RMT research, ethics, and religious views (measured on a 5-point Likert scale). The knowledge section categorised levels as poor (0-4), moderate (5-8), or high (9-12). Findings revealed that fundamental knowledge of RMT is inadequate among university students, with low overall mean knowledge scores of 0.56 ± 0.23 and 0.47 ± 0.22. Since most students recognised basic concepts, 80.6% failed to correctly identify specific stem cell types, such as chondrocytes, or the source of embryonic stem cells. Medical students demonstrated significantly greater knowledge and understanding of RMT than non-medical students (p < 0.05), particularly in identifying RMT as a treatment for cancer and tissue replacement. These results underscore an urgent need for curriculum reform to prevent future professional negligence and ensure robust healthcare risk management. Students showed a generally positive attitude towards stem cells and their therapeutic applications, with mean scores of 3.75 ± 0.53 and 3.65 ± 0.56, respectively, showing no significant difference between females and males (p > 0.05). In conclusion, Malaysian university students have a moderate to positive attitude towards stem cells and their therapeutic applications in regenerative medicine; however, their knowledge is inadequate, suggesting the need to implement a regenerative medicine syllabus in the current curriculum to educate them on required knowledge of stem cells and prepare future healthcare professionals and graduates.
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.