Electromagnetic field exposure as a plausible approach to enhance the proliferation and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in clinically relevant scenarios
Hamid HA., Sarmadi VH., Prasad V., Ramasamy R., Miskon A.
Narrative Review, published in J Zhejiang Univ Sci B (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- J Zhejiang Univ Sci B (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35029087
- PMCID
- PMC8758935
- DOI
- 10.1631/jzus.b2100443
- Citations
- 21
Abstract (original English)
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC)-based therapy has been regarded as one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in the history of modern medicine owing to its myriad of immunoregulatory and regenerative properties. With the rapid progress in the fields of osteo- and musculoskeletal therapies, the demand for MSC-based treatment modalities is becoming increasingly prominent. In this endeavor, researchers around the world have devised new and innovative techniques to support the proliferation of MSCs while minimizing the loss of hallmark features of stem cells. One such example is electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, which is an alternative approach with promising potential. In this review, we present a critical discourse on the efficiency, practicability, and limitations of some of the relevant methods, with insurmountable evidence backing the implementation of EMF as a feasible strategy for the clinically relevant expansion of MSCs.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.