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

Stem cell therapy in spinal trauma: Does it have scientific validity?

Chhabra HS., Sarda K.

Clinical Trial on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Indian J Orthop (2015) — 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
Indian J Orthop (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
25593357
PMCID
PMC4292327
DOI
10.4103/0019-5413.143913
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Stem cell-based interventions aim to use special regenerative cells (stem cells) to facilitate neuronal function beyond the site of the injury. Many studies involving animal models of spinal cord injury (SCI) suggest that certain stem cell-based therapies may restore function after SCI. Currently, in case of spinal cord injuries, new discoveries with clinical implications have been continuously made in basic stem cell research, and stem cell-based approaches are advancing rapidly toward application in patients. There is a huge base of preclinical evidence in vitro and in animal models which suggests the safety and clinical efficacy of cellular therapies after SCI. Despite this, data from clinical studies is not very encouraging and at times confounding. Here, we have attempted to cover preclinical and clinical evidence base dealing with safety, feasibility and efficacy of cell based interventions after SCI. The limitations of preclinical data and the reasons underlying its failure to translate in a clinical setting are also discussed. Based on the evidence base, it is suggested that a multifactorial approach is required to address this situation. Need for standardized, stringently designed multi-centric clinical trials for obtaining validated proof of evidence is also highlighted.

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