Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT-TAHA8)
Attar A, Mirhosseini SA, Mathur A, Dowlut S, Monabati A, Kasaei M, Abtahi F, Kiwan Y, Vosough M, Azarpira N.
Paper source
Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT-TAHA8)
This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Adcurare Editorial · July 6, 2026
How this rating was calculated▸
- IntegrityIntegrity concern ×4−2★
- ReportingKey resources not met−0.5★
- Key resources not identified
- Implausibly large reported effect
- Internal contradictions in the reported numbers
This Adcurare Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.
The paper presents a well-designed phase 3 RCT with strong reporting transparency and data availability. However, several rigor gaps need attention: the power analysis lacks explicit alpha and power, key resources (antibodies, cell product identifier, mycoplasma testing) are incompletely reported, biological variable reporting is incomplete (sex justification, race/ethnicity), and a minor statistical discrepancy exists in Table 2.
Three independent reviewers evaluated all eight dimensions; their ratings diverged on study design, biological variables, key resources, and statistical analysis, with the synthesized statuses reflecting the more specific and verifiable evidence. The statistics verification component checked 16 tests and found all consistent, but coverage is limited to tests with a test statistic and df or an effect estimate with CI.
12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.
Recomputed 16 tests: 16 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 16 via agent-written checks.
4 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).
16 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, punctuation.
Checked 36 references: 36 verified.
4 data/code links checked; 4 live.
Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.
Ready after minor-to-moderate edits. The most consequential gaps are in key resources (missing identifiers and mycoplasma testing) and the statistical discrepancy in Table 2. Addressing these, along with the copyedit fixes, will bring the manuscript to a submission-ready state.
- 1.HIGHrigorAdd vendor, catalog number, clone, and RRID for all antibodies used in flow cytometry (CD105, CD73, CD90, CD45, CD34, CD11b, CD31, HLA-DR) to the Methods section.Antibody identification is essential for reproducibility; missing these details is a key resource gap.
- 2.HIGHrigorExplicitly report mycoplasma testing (method and result) for each batch of mesenchymal stem cells in the Methods section.Mycoplasma contamination is a known issue in cell therapy; its absence is a key resource gap.
- 3.HIGHrigorProvide a standard identifier (e.g., cell bank accession number, RRID) for the Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cell product to improve traceability.A unique identifier for the cell product is essential for reproducibility and regulatory compliance.
- 4.HIGHstatisticsCorrect or clarify the annual incidence rate for heart failure in the control group (Table 2: 37 events/551.88 person-years gives 6.71, not 6.48).This discrepancy suggests a possible transcription error that could affect the reported effect size.
- 5.HIGHreportingInclude the significance level (alpha) and desired power in the sample size calculation description to make the power analysis fully adequate.A complete power analysis is a standard requirement for clinical trial reporting.
- 6.HIGHreportingProvide a scientific justification for the predominance of male participants in the study, or acknowledge the lack of female representation as a limitation with an explanation of why it occurred.Sex imbalance without justification is a biological variable reporting gap.
- 7.HIGHreportingReport race/ethnicity data for the study population, or state why it was not collected.Race/ethnicity is important for generalizability and is a standard demographic variable.
- 8.HIGHstatisticsReport the results of normality tests (Shapiro-Wilk/Kruskal-Wallis) in a supplementary table, and describe the explicit action taken when assumptions were violated.Assumption verification is incomplete without reporting the test results and subsequent actions.
- 9.HIGHstatisticsReport exact p-values (e.g., P=0.100 instead of P=0.10) for all outcomes, including non-significant ones.Threshold p-values are less informative and can obscure the strength of evidence.
- 10.HIGHcopyeditFix the apparent transcription errors in Table 1: '18 (134)' for eGFR <60 in intervention group should likely be '18 (13)'; '39 (1)' for control should likely be '39 (15)'.These percentages are nonsensical and will be flagged by any careful reader or reviewer.
- 11.HIGHcopyeditCorrect the unit for eGFR from 'mm/min/1.73 m2' to 'mL/min/1.73 m2' in Table 1.The standard unit is mL/min/1.73 m2, not mm/min.
- 12.HIGHcopyeditFix missing closing parentheses in Table 2 for cumulative probability values in the control column (e.g., '16.08 (10.90 to 21.27' should be '16.08 (10.90 to 21.27)').Missing parentheses are formatting errors that reduce readability.
- 13.MEDIUMreportingAdd a statement on outlier handling in the statistical analysis section, specifying any pre-specified rules for excluding data points.Outlier handling is a standard element of statistical analysis reporting.
- 14.MEDIUMreportingIn the Discussion, explicitly mention that the study was not powered to detect subgroup effects (relevant for the sex interaction discussion).This caveat is important for interpreting subgroup analyses.
- 15.LOWreportingConsider providing a CONSORT flow diagram with exact reasons for each exclusion (already included in Figure 1, but ensure numbers sum correctly).A complete CONSORT flow diagram is a standard requirement for RCT reporting.
Adcurare assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we evaluate →