Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Stem cells: a promising candidate to treat neurological disorders
Song CG, Zhang YZ, Wu HN, Cao XL, Guo CJ, Li YQ, Zheng MH, Han H.. Neural regeneration research, 2018-07-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Neurologic impairments are usually irreversible as a result of limited regeneration in the central nervous system. Therefore, based on the regenerative capacity of stem cells, transplantation therapies of various stem cells have been tested in basic research and preclinical trials, and some have shown great prospects. This manuscript overviews the cellular and molecular characteristics of embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, neural stem cells, retinal stem/progenitor cells, mesenchymal stem/stromal cells, and their derivatives in vivo and in vitro as sources for regenerative therapy. These cells have all been considered as candidates to treat several major neurological disorders and diseases, owing to their self-renewal capacity, multi-directional differentiation, neurotrophic properties, and immune modulation effects. We also review representative basic research and recent clinical trials using stem cells for neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and age-related macular degeneration, as well as traumatic brain injury and glioblastoma. In spite of a few unsuccessful cases, risks of tumorigenicity, and ethical concerns, most results of animal experiments and clinical trials demonstrate efficacious therapeutic effects of stem cells in the treatment of nervous system disease. In summary, these emerging findings in regenerative medicine are likely to contribute to breakthroughs in the treatment of neurological disorders. Thus, stem cells are a promising candidate for the treatment of nervous system diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Song, C. G., Zhang, Y. Z., Wu, H. N., Cao, X. L., Guo, C. J., Li, Y. Q., et al. (2018). Stem cells: a promising candidate to treat neurological disorders. Neural regeneration research. https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.235085
Vancouver
Song CG, Zhang YZ, Wu HN, Cao XL, Guo CJ, Li YQ, et al. Stem cells: a promising candidate to treat neurological disorders. Neural regeneration research. 2018. doi:10.4103/1673-5374.235085. PMID: 30028342.
BibTeX
@article{song2018-30028342,
author = {Song, C. G. and Zhang, Y. Z. and Wu, H. N. and Cao, X. L. and Guo, C. J. and Li, Y. Q. and Zheng, M. H. and Han, H.},
title = {{Stem cells: a promising candidate to treat neurological disorders}},
journal = {Neural regeneration research},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.4103/1673-5374.235085},
pmid = {30028342},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.235085}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Neurologic impairments are usually irreversible as a result of limited regeneration in the central nervous system.
- In spite of a few unsuccessful cases, risks of tumorigenicity, and ethical concerns, most results of animal experiments and clinical trials demonstrate efficacious therapeutic effects of stem cells in the treatment of nervous system disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neural regeneration research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30028342) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “treat”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “treat”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.