Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Regenerative medicine in lung diseases: A systematic review

Adamič N., Vengust M.

Systematic Review, published in Front Vet Sci (2023) — 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 Vet Sci (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36733636
PMCID
PMC9887049
DOI
10.3389/fvets.2023.1115708
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Regenerative medicine has opened the door to the exploration of new therapeutic methods for the treatment of various diseases, especially those associated with local or general disregulation of the immune system. In pulmonary diseases, new therapeutic strategies have emerged that are aimed at restoring functional lung tissue rather than alleviating symptoms. These strategies focus on tissue regeneration using stem cells and/or their derivatives or replacement of dysfunctional tissue using biomedical engineering. Animal health can directly benefit from regenerative therapy strategies and also serve as a translational experimental model for human disease. Several clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the effects of cellular treatment on inflammatory lung disease in animals. Data reported to date show several beneficial effects in ex vivo and in vivo models; however, our understanding of the mechanisms that regenerative therapies exert on diseased tissues remains incomplete.

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.