Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trends in mesenchymal stem cell clinical trials 2004-2018: Is efficacy optimal in a narrow dose range?

Open access
Kabat, Maciej, Bobkov, Ivan, Kumar, Suneel, Grumet, Martin·2020·Stem Cells Translational Medicine

Abstract

The number of clinical trials using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has increased since 2008, but this trend slowed in the past several years and dropped precipitously in 2018. Previous reports have analyzed MSC clinical trials by disease, phase, cell source, country of origin, and trial initiation date, all of which can be downloaded directly from ClinicalTrials.gov. We have extended analyses to a larger group of 914 MSC trials reported through 2018. To search for potential factors that may influence the design of new trials, we extracted data on routes of administration and dosing from individual ClinicalTrials.gov records as this information cannot be downloaded directly from the database. Intravenous (IV) injection is the most common, least invasive and most reproducible method, accounting for 43% of all trials. The median dose for IV delivery is 100 million MSCs/patient/dose. Analysis of all trials using IV injection that reported positive outcomes indicated minimal effective doses (MEDs) ranging from 70 to 190 million MSCs/patient/dose in 14/16 trials with the other two trials administering much higher doses of at least 900 million cells. Dose-response data showing differential efficacy for improved outcomes were reported in only four trials, which indicated a narrower MED range of 100-150 million MSCs/patient with lower and higher IV doses being less effective. The results suggest that it may be critical to determine MEDs in early trials before proceeding with large clinical trials. Lessons learned Initially, the number of trials increased, then leveled off several years ago and dropped dramatically in 2018. Many of the doses of cells being delivered may not be maximally effective because they are too low or high in some trials. It is important to test for efficacy as well as safety in early trials. Significance statementThe significance of this study is that critical numbers of cells may need to be used for the most effective stem cell therapies. The results suggest a range of minimally effective cell doses for intravenous injection, which is the method used in almost half of all therapies. Increasing doses are usually tested for safety, and the highest tolerated dose is often used in a clinical trial. Studies need to measure initial efficacy along with safety to use the most effective doses rather than the safest doses tolerated, which might be an overdose. Too many or few cells are not optimal.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sctm.19-0202

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Kabat, M., Bobkov, I., Kumar, S., & Grumet, M.
Venue
Stem Cells Translational Medicine
Published
2019-12-05
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
17-27
ISSN
  • 2157-6564 (ISSN-L)
  • 2157-6580
OpenAlex
W2992079273
Cited by
444
References
58
FWCI
29.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends in mesenchymal stem cell clinical trials 2004-2018: Is efficacy optimal in a narrow dose range? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sctm.19-0202
The paper
Kabat, M., Bobkov, I., Kumar, S., & Grumet, M. (2020). Trends in mesenchymal stem cell clinical trials 2004-2018: Is efficacy optimal in a narrow dose range? Stem Cells Translational Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.19-0202

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.