Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

Spatial and temporal structure of the clinical research based on mesenchymal stromal cells: A network analysis.

Monsarrat P., Kemoun P., Vergnes JN., Sensebe L., Casteilla L., Planat-Benard V.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 563 on Hip, published in Cytotherapy (2016) — 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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Cytotherapy (2016)
Country
England
Reported sample size
563
Source database
PubMed
PMID
27765602
DOI
10.1016/j.jcyt.2016.09.005

Abstract (original English)

Using innovative tools derived from social network analysis, the aims of this study were (i) to decipher the spatial and temporal structure of the research centers network dedicated to the therapeutic uses of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and (ii) to measure the influence of fields of applications, cellular sources and industry funding on network topography. From each trial using MSCs reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, all research centers were extracted. Networks were generated using Cytoscape 3.2.2, where each center was assimilated to a node, and one trial to an edge connecting two nodes. The analysis included 563 studies. An independent segregation was obvious between continents. Asian, South American and African centers were significantly more isolated than other centers. Isolated centers had fewer advanced phases (P <0.001), completed studies (P = 0.01) and industry-supported studies (P <0.001). Various thematic priorities among continents were identified: the cardiovascular, digestive and nervous system diseases were strongly studied by North America, Europe and Asia, respectively. The choice of cellular sources also affected the network topography; North America was primarily involved in bone-marrow-derived MSC research, whereas Europe and Asia dominated the use of adipose-derived MSCs. Industrial funding was the highest for North American centers (90.5%). Strengthening

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAsiaBiomedical ResearchBone Marrow CellsClinical Trials as TopicEuropeHumansInternational CooperationMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationMesenchymal Stem Cells

Browse all related research

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

Related research