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

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

McLean AK., Stewart C., Kerridge I.

Clinical Trial, published in Stem Cell Res Ther (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
Stem Cell Res Ther (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
25689404
PMCID
PMC4364356
DOI
10.1186/s13287-015-0047-8
Citations
37

Abstract (original English)

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

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
Stem CellsAnimalsHumansTreatment OutcomeStem Cell TransplantationAustraliaCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyAutografts

Browse all related research

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