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