Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 598

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Review of Cellular Transplantation Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury

Open access
Tetzlaff, Wolfram, Okon, Elena B., Karimi-Abdolrezaee, Soheila, Hill, Caitlin E., Sparling, Joseph S., Plemel, Jason R., Plunet, Ward T., Tsai, Eve C., Baptiste, Darryl, Smithson, Laura J., Kawaja, Michael D., Fehlings, Michael G., Kwon, Brian K.·2011·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

Cell transplantation therapies have become a major focus in pre-clinical research as a promising strategy for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). In this article, we systematically review the available pre-clinical literature on the most commonly used cell types in order to assess the body of evidence that may support their translation to human SCI patients. These cell types include Schwann cells, olfactory ensheathing glial cells, embryonic and adult neural stem/progenitor cells, fate-restricted neural/glial precursor cells, and bone-marrow stromal cells. Studies were included for review only if they described the transplantation of the cell substrate into an in-vivo model of traumatic SCI, induced either bluntly or sharply. Using these inclusion criteria, 162 studies were identified and reviewed in detail, emphasizing their behavioral effects (although not limiting the scope of the discussion to behavioral effects alone). Significant differences between cells of the same “type” exist based on the species and age of donor, as well as culture conditions and mode of delivery. Many of these studies used cell transplantations in combination with other strategies. The systematic review makes it very apparent that cells derived from rodent sources have been the most extensively studied, while only 19 studies reported the transplantation of human cells, nine of which utilized bone-marrow stromal cells. Similarly, the vast majority of studies have been conducted in rodent models of injury, and few studies have investigated cell transplantation in larger mammals or primates. With respect to the timing of intervention, nearly all of the studies reviewed were conducted with transplantations occurring subacutely and acutely, while chronic treatments were rare and often failed to yield functional benefits.

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 · 10.1089/neu.2009.1177

Cites

128 of 128 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 128 references

Cited by

See all 598

Metadata

Authors
Tetzlaff, W., Okon, E. B., Karimi-Abdolrezaee, S., Hill, C. E., Sparling, J. S., Plemel, J. R., Plunet, W. T., Tsai, E. C., Baptiste, D., Smithson, L. J., Kawaja, M. D., Fehlings, M. G., & Kwon, B. K.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2011-08
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
1611-1682
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W1997721049
Cited by
598
References
128
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: A Systematic Review of Cellular Transplantation Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/neu.2009.1177
The paper
Tetzlaff, W., Okon, E. B., Karimi-Abdolrezaee, S., Hill, C. E., Sparling, J. S., Plemel, J. R., Plunet, W. T., Tsai, E. C., Baptiste, D., Smithson, L. J., Kawaja, M. D., Fehlings, M. G., & Kwon, B. K. (2011). A Systematic Review of Cellular Transplantation Therapies for Spinal Cord Injury. Journal of Neurotrauma. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2009.1177

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.