How strong is the evidence for stem-cell therapy in Tendon & Sports Injuries?
ClinicalTrials.gov registrations alone cannot establish how strong the evidence is. Registry activity is thin and mostly exploratory: the registry holds 13 records, 4 completed, 1 at Phase 3 or 4, and 1 stopped early (8%). MSC-specific work accounts for 5 of those records. These counts describe research activity and maturity, not benefit, safety or certainty. Snapshot 2026-08-29.
What counts as a real result in Tendon & Sports Injuries
Meaningful evidence compares validated tendon scores against sham injection plus equivalent loading, at six to twelve months. Tendinopathy improves substantially with loading alone, so any trial without matched rehabilitation in both arms is uninterpretable.
What we can say from registrations alone
- Volume: 13 registered studies since 2009.
- Maturity: 1 confirmatory-phase records.
- Delivery: 4 completed; 1 terminated, withdrawn or suspended.
- Scale: median planned enrolment 30 participants, largest 231.
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.
| Study | Phase | Status | Planned n | Lead sponsor | Start |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT02052089 — Comparative Study for the Optimal Treatment Method of Lateral Epicondylosis | n/a | Completed | 231 | CM Chungmu Hospital | 2009-03 |
| NCT03449082 — Treatment of Intractable Common Extensor Tendon Injury Using Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Allo-ASC) | Phase 2 | Completed | 30 | Seoul National University Hospital | 2018-03-15 |
| NCT02131077 — Safety and Efficacy Study of Allogeneic Adipose-derived Stem Cells for Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis | Phase 1, Phase 2 | Completed | 30 | Anterogen Co., Ltd. | 2014-01 |
| NCT01856140 — Treatment of Tendon Injury Using Mesenchymal Stem Cells | Early Phase 1 | Completed | 12 | Seoul National University Hospital | 2013-05 |
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 "Tendon & Sports Injuries 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 Tendon & Sports Injuries?
ClinicalTrials.gov registrations alone cannot establish how strong the evidence is. Registry activity is thin and mostly exploratory: 13 registered records, 1 at Phase 3/4 and 1 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?
It converts activity into the appearance of proof. A hundred early-phase registrations do not add up to one adequately controlled result.
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.