SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

The application of stem cell sheets for neuronal regeneration after spinal cord injury: a systematic review of pre-clinical studies.

Xu L., Zhao H., Yang Y., Xiong Y., Zhong W., Jiang G.

Systematic Review on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Syst Rev (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Systematic Review
Journal
Syst Rev (2023)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
PMID
38037129
DOI
10.1186/s13643-023-02390-3

Abstract (original English)

Stem cell sheet implantation offers a promising avenue for spinal cord injury (SCI) and is currently under investigation in pre-clinical in vivo studies. Nevertheless, a systematic review of the relevant literature is yet to be performed. Thus, this systematic review aims to explore the efficacy of stem cell sheet technology in treating SCI, as indicated by experimental animal model studies. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Manuscripts that did not pertain to in vivo pre-clinical studies and those published in non-English languages were excluded. A risk assessment for bias was performed using the SYRCLE tool. Extracted data were synthesized only qualitatively because the data were not suitable for conducting the meta-analysis. Among the 847 studies retrieved from electronic database searches, seven met the inclusion criteria. Six of these studies employed a complete transection model, while one utilized a compression model. Stem cell sources included bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. In all included studies, stem cell sheet application significantly improved motor and sensory functional scores compared to intreated SCI rats. This functional recovery correlated with histological improvements at the injury site. All studies are at low risk of bias but certain domains wer

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
AnimalsHumansRatsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationMesenchymal Stem CellsSpinal Cord Injuries
Back & SpineSpinal Cord Injury
View on PubMedDOI

Related research