Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Stem Cell Therapy for Neurogenic Bladder After Spinal Cord Injury: Clinically Possible?

Kim SJ., Cho YS., Park JM., Na YG., Kim KH.

Clinical Trial on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Int Neurourol J (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Int Neurourol J (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32482052
PMCID
PMC7285699
DOI
10.5213/inj.2040150.075
Citations
6

Abstract (original English)

Neurogenic bladder (NB) after spinal cord injury (SCI) is a common complication that inhibits normal daily activities and reduces the quality of life. Regrettably, the current therapeutic methods for NB are inadequate. Therefore, numerous studies have been conducted to develop new treatments for NB associated with SCI. Moreover, a myriad of preclinical and clinical trials on the effects and safety of stem cell therapy in patients with SCI have been performed, and several studies have demonstrated improvements in urodynamic parameters, as well as in sensory and motor function, after stem cell therapy. These results are promising; however, further high-quality clinical studies are necessary to compensate for a lack of randomized trials, the modest number of participants, variation in the types of stem cells used, and inconsistency in routes of administration.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research