Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Enhancing regenerative medicine: the crucial role of stem cell therapy

Wang J., Deng G., Wang S., Li S., Song P., Lin K.

Systematic Review, published in Front Neurosci (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • 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
Systematic Review
Journal
Front Neurosci (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38389789
PMCID
PMC10881826
DOI
10.3389/fnins.2024.1269577
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Stem cells offer new therapeutic avenues for the repair and replacement of damaged tissues and organs owing to their self-renewal and multipotent differentiation capabilities. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of the characteristics of various types of stem cells and offer insights into their potential applications in both cellular and cell-free therapies. In addition, we provide a comprehensive summary of the technical routes of stem cell therapy and discuss in detail current challenges, including safety issues and differentiation control. Although some issues remain, stem cell therapy demonstrates excellent potential in the field of regenerative medicine and provides novel tactics and methodologies for managing a wider spectrum of illnesses and traumas.

What this study does not prove

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

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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