Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Characterisation of mesenchymal stromal cells in clinical trial reports: analysis of published descriptors

Wilson AJ., Rand E., Webster AJ., Genever PG.

Clinical Trial on Face & Skin, published in Stem Cell Res Ther (2021) — 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 Cell Res Ther (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34158116
PMCID
PMC8220718
DOI
10.1186/s13287-021-02435-1
Citations
42

Abstract (original English)

Background Mesenchymal stem or stromal cells are the most widely used cell therapy to date. They are heterogeneous, with variations in growth potential, differentiation capacity and protein expression profile depending on tissue source and production process. Nomenclature and defining characteristics have been debated for almost 20 years, yet the generic term 'MSC' is used to cover a wide range of cellular phenotypes. Against a documented lack of definition of cellular populations used in clinical trials, our study evaluated the extent of characterisation of the cellular population or study drug. Methods A literature search of clinical trials involving mesenchymal stem/stromal cells was refined to 84 papers upon application of pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were extracted covering background trial information including location, phase, indication, tissue source and details of clinical cell population characterisation (expression of surface markers, viability, differentiation assays and potency/functionality assays). Descriptive statistics were applied, and tests of association between groups were explored using Fisher's exact test for count data with simulated p value. Results Twenty-eight studies (33.3%) include no characterisation data. Forty-five (53.6%) reported average values per marker for all cell lots used in the trial, and 11 (13.1%) studies included in

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
Bone Marrow CellsCells, CulturedMesenchymal Stem CellsCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationOsteogenesisChondrogenesisAdipogenesis

Browse all related research

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

Related research