How StemCellAtlas reviews evidence: source classification, not clinic endorsement

First classify each statement: regulator status, trial registration, peer-reviewed evidence, provider-supplied document, published commercial price or patient report. Keep these source classes visibly separate. A provider page can document what is claimed but cannot independently prove the claim.

At product level, record indication, cell or tissue source, manipulation, dose, route, manufacturer, site and proposed legal pathway. Cross-check authorisation and trial status in the relevant official system. Do not infer permission from a facility licence, accreditation logo, GMP reference or registry listing.

For clinical evidence, match population, product, dose, route, comparator and endpoints. Record study design, sample size, follow-up, missing data, adverse events and conflicts. Laboratory mechanisms, animal data, uncontrolled cohorts and randomised trials must not be presented as the same evidence tier.

For cost and service claims, preserve currency, date, scope, exclusions and source URL. Do not rank providers from non-equivalent packages. Corrections, inaccessible sources and unresolved discrepancies should remain visible in an audit trail with a review date.

The output is a research aid, not a recommendation or substitute for regulatory, legal or clinical due diligence. Users should verify the exact proposal with the competent authority and an independent specialist. Editorial inclusion, a profile or a higher completeness score must never be described as approval by StemCellAtlas.

Sources & further reading

• Stem-cell trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) ↗
• Peer-reviewed research (PubMed) ↗
• ISSCR — patient resources ↗
• FDA — consumer guidance ↗
• EMA — ATMP framework ↗

Commercial price observations are heterogeneous and most cell-therapy uses remain investigational. Verify source scope, regulatory status and the proposed care with an independent qualified physician.