↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Stem cell‐based interventions for the treatment of stroke in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Stem cell‐based interventions for the treatment of stroke in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd015582.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Bruschettini, Anna Badura, Olga Romantsik

Abstract

Perinatal stroke refers to a diverse but specific group of cerebrovascular diseases that occur between 20 weeks of fetal life and 28 days of postnatal life. Acute treatment options for perinatal stroke are limited supportive care, such as controlling hypoglycemia and seizures. Stem cell-based therapies offer a potential therapeutic approach to repair, restore, or regenerate injured brain tissue. Preclinical findings have culminated in ongoing human neonatal studies. To evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for the treatment of stroke in newborn infants compared to control (placebo or no treatment) or stem-cell based interventions of a different type or source. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trials registries in February 2023. We planned to search the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches. We attempted to include randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials that evaluated any of the following comparisons. • Stem cell-based interventions (any type) versus control (placebo or no treatment) • Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) of a specifictype (e.g. number of doses or passages) or source (e.g. autologous/allogeneic or bone marrow/cord) versus MSCs of another type or source • Stem cell-based interventions (other than MSCs) of a specific type (e.g. mononuclear cells, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, neural stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cells) or source (e.g. autologous/allogeneic or bone marrow/cord) versus stem cell-based interventions (other than MSCs) of another type or source • MSCs versus stem cell-based interventions other than MSCs We planned to include all types of transplantation regardless of cell source (bone marrow, cord blood, Wharton's jelly, placenta, adipose tissue, peripheral blood), type of graft (autologous or allogeneic), and dose. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause neonatal mortality, major neurodevelopmental disability, and immune rejection or any serious adverse event. Our secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality prior to first hospital discharge, seizures, adverse effects, and death or major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months of age. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We identified no completed or ongoing randomized trials that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded three studies: two were phase 1 trials, and one included newborn infants with conditions other than stroke (i.e. cerebral ischemia and anemia). Among the three excluded studies, we identified the first phase 1 trial on the use of stem cells for neonatal stroke. It reported that a single intranasal application of bone marrow-derived MSCs in term neonates with a diagnosis of perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) was feasible and apparently not associated with severe adverse events. However, the trial included only 10 infants, and follow-up was limited to three months. No evidence is currently available to evaluate the benefits and harms of stem cell-based interventions for treatment of stroke in newborn infants. We identified no ongoing studies. Future clinical trials should focus on standardizing the timing and method of cell delivery and cell processing to optimize the therapeutic potential of stem cell-based interventions and safety profiles. Phase 1 and large animal studies might provide the groundwork for future randomized trials. Outcome measures should include all-cause mortality, major neurodevelopmental disability and immune rejection, and any other serious adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 36%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 9 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,072,033
of 25,838,141 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,678
of 13,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,806
of 369,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,838,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.