Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The evolution and ongoing challenge of unproven cell-based interventions

Brinsfield TN., Pinson NR., Levine AD.

Narrative Review, published in Stem Cells Transl Med (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
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
Narrative Review
Journal
Stem Cells Transl Med (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39045646
PMCID
PMC11386208
DOI
10.1093/stcltm/szae050
Citations
4

Abstract (original English)

Unproven cell-based interventions (CBIs) emerged early in the 2000s as a particularly problematic form of unproven therapy and remain a vexing policy problem to this day. These unproven interventions can harm patients both physically and financially and can complicate the process of developing a rigorous evidence base to support the translation of novel stem cell or other cell therapies. In this concise review, we examine the emergence of unproven CBIs and the various policy approaches that have been pursued or proposed to address this problem. We review the evolution of this field over the last 2 decades and explore why these policy efforts have proven challenging. We conclude by highlighting potential directions that the field could evolve and urging continued attention to both current and future forms of unproven CBIs to minimize future risks to patients and the field and to promote the development of evidence-based cell therapies.

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 evidence
HumansStem Cell TransplantationEvidence-Based MedicineCell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

Browse all related research

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