Question

How strong is the evidence for stem-cell therapy in Macular Degeneration & Vision?

ClinicalTrials.gov registrations alone cannot establish how strong the evidence is. Registry activity is active but still early, with limited late-phase registration: the registry holds 44 records, 16 completed, 0 at Phase 3 or 4, and 5 stopped early (11%). MSC-specific work accounts for 4 of those records. These counts describe research activity and maturity, not benefit, safety or certainty. Snapshot 2026-08-29.

Medical review statusMedically reviewedReviewed by: Stem Plus medical teamReviewed on: 2026-08-29Last evidence update: 2026-08-29Methodology and editorial standards
Clinical review team: Dr Kamelia Milcheva, Hematologist · Dr Vadym Uvarov, Board-Certified Physician · Hepatobiliary Surgeon · Candidate of Medical SciencesEditorial responsibility: StemCellAtlas research teamEducational information only. This page does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or a treatment recommendation.

What counts as a real result in Macular Degeneration & Vision

Credible endpoints are best-corrected visual acuity, reading speed and OCT-measured structural change against natural history, over a year or more. Subjective 'brighter vision' after an injection is not an acuity gain, and eyes carry irreversible downside risk.

What we can say from registrations alone

  • Volume: 44 registered studies since 2009.
  • Maturity: 0 confirmatory-phase records.
  • Delivery: 16 completed; 5 terminated, withdrawn or suspended.
  • Scale: median planned enrolment 15 participants, largest 1,279.

The completed studies

Completed does not mean published, and published does not mean positive. These are the finished records — the starting point for checking whether results ever appeared.

StudyPhaseStatusPlanned nLead sponsorStart
NCT03372746 — Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) Cell Lines From Skin Fibroblast Cells of Participants With Age-Related Macular Degenerationn/aCompleted187National Eye Institute (NEI)2018-05-23
NCT01051700 — A Safety Study in Healthy Volunteers to Evaluate Safety, How Fast the Drug is Absorbed, and the Side Effects of the Drug in HumansPhase 1Completed72GlaxoSmithKline2010-01-12
NCT02162953 — Stem Cell Models of Best Disease and Other Retinal Degenerative Diseases.n/aCompleted48Mayo Clinic2014-02
NCT01660581 — Intracardiac CD133+ Cells in Patients With No-option Resistant AnginaPhase 2Completed31Medical University of Silesia2012-06
NCT01518127 — Intravitreal Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cells in Patients With Macular Degenerationn/aCompleted20University of Sao Paulo2011-08
NCT02903576 — Stem Cell Therapy for Outer Retinal DegenerationsPhase 1, Phase 2Completed15Federal University of São Paulo2015-08

What registrations cannot tell you

Whether results were positive. Whether they were published at all — a large share of registered studies never report outcomes, which biases what the literature appears to show. And whether the product a commercial clinic sells resembles the product studied: cell source, dose, processing and delivery route vary enormously between a registered protocol and an off-protocol injection.

How to use this when someone is selling you a treatment

Ask which specific registered study supports the offer, then compare its intervention description with your quote. If the answer is a general gesture at "Macular Degeneration & Vision research", you are being sold the field's activity rather than evidence about the product. The Provider Question Builder turns that gap into questions.

Frequently asked

How strong is the evidence for stem-cell therapy in Macular Degeneration & Vision?

ClinicalTrials.gov registrations alone cannot establish how strong the evidence is. Registry activity is active but still early, with limited late-phase registration: 44 registered records, 0 at Phase 3/4 and 5 stopped early (2026-08-29).

Has any stem-cell product been approved for this condition?

Look it up at source: regulators publish authorised products and indications. Registration of a trial, a licence to operate a clinic and product approval are three different things.

Why do clinics cite hundreds of studies?

Volume is the cheapest form of credibility. Ask instead for the controlled studies of the specific product, and read what outcome they measured.

Registry and literature counts retrieved 2026-08-29 (ClinicalTrials.gov API v2; PubMed E-utilities). Registration or publication volume measures research activity, not effectiveness or approval. Educational information — not medical advice; verify product, indication, legal pathway and evidence with an independent qualified physician. Page generated 2026-08-29. See our editorial standards.

Explore all sections · Data & downloads