Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 216

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cellular Transplants in China: Observational Study from the Largest Human Experiment in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury

Open access
Dobkin, Bruce H., Curt, Armin, Guest, James·2006·Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Abstract

Background. In China, fetal brain tissue has been transplanted into the lesions of more than 400 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Anecdotal reports have been the only basis for assuming that the procedure is safe and effective. Objective. To compare available reports to the experiences and objective findings of patients who received pre-operative and postoperative assessments before and up to 1 year after receiving cellular implants. Methods. Independent observational study of 7 chronic SCI subjects undergoing surgery by Dr Hongyun Huang in Beijing. Assessments included lesion location by magnetic resonance imaging, protocol of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), change in disability, and detailed history of the perioperative course. Results. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were not clearly defined, as subjects with myelopathies graded ASIA A through D and of diverse causes were eligible. Cell injection sites did not always correlate with the level of injury and included the frontal lobes of a subject with a high cervical lesion. Complications, including meningitis, occurred in 5 subjects. Transient postoperative hypotonicity may have accounted for some physical changes. No clinically useful sensorimotor, disability, or autonomic improvements were found. Conclusions. The phenotype and the fate of the transplanted cells, described as olfactory ensheathing cells, are unknown. Perioperative morbidity and lack of functional benefit were identified as the most serious clinical shortcomings. The procedures observed did not attempt to meet international standards for either a safety or efficacy trial. In the absence of a valid clinical trials protocol, physicians should not recommend this procedure to patients.

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 · 10.1177/1545968305284675

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Dobkin, B. H., Curt, A., & Guest, J.
Venue
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
Published
2006-03
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
5-13
ISSN
  • 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-9683
  • 1552-6844
OpenAlex
W2124538252
Cited by
216
References
1
FWCI
15.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Cellular Transplants in China: Observational Study from the Largest Human Experiment in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1545968305284675
The paper
Dobkin, B. H., Curt, A., & Guest, J. (2006). Cellular Transplants in China: Observational Study from the Largest Human Experiment in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968305284675

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.