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