Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialPubMedOpen access

Are They Really Stem Cells? Scrutinizing the Identity of Cells and the Quality of Reporting in the Use of Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cells.

Balolong E., Lee S., Nemeno JG., Lee JI.

Clinical Trial on Face & Skin, published in Stem Cells Int (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Clinical Trial
Journal
Stem Cells Int (2015)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
26798353
PMCID
PMC4700199
DOI
10.1155/2016/2302430
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

There is an increasing concern that the term adipose tissue-derived stem cell (ASC) is inappropriately used to refer to the adipose stromal vascular fraction (SVF). To evaluate the accuracy and quality of reporting, 116 manuscripts on the application of ASC in humans and animals were examined based on the 2013 published International Federation for Adipose Therapeutics and Science (IFATS)/ International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT) joint statement and in reference to current guidelines for clinical trials and preclinical studies. It is disconcerting that 4 among the 47 papers or 8.51% (CI 2.37-20.38) surveyed after publication of IFATS/ISCT statement reported using ASCs but in fact they used unexpanded cells. 28/47 or 59.57% (CI 44.27-73.63) explicitly reported that adherent cells were used, 35/47 or 74.47% (CI 59.65-86.06) identified expression of surface markers, and 25/47 or 53.19% (CI 14.72-30.65) verified the multilineage potential of the cells. While there are a number of papers examined in this survey that were not able to provide adequate information on the characteristics of ASCs used with some erroneously referring to the SVF as stem cells, there are more room for improvement in the quality of reporting in the application of ASCs in humans and animals.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research