Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Cartilage Regeneration Using Human Umbilical Cord Blood Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lee DH., Kim SA., Song JS., Shetty AA., Kim BH., Kim SJ.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 570 on Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, published in Medicina (Kaunas) (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Medicina (Kaunas) (2022)
Reported sample size
570
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36557003
PMCID
PMC9786930
DOI
10.3390/medicina58121801
Citations
17

Abstract (original English)

Background and Objectives: Human umbilical-cord-blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hUCB-MSCs) have recently been used in clinical cartilage regeneration procedures with the expectation of improved regeneration capacity. However, the number of studies using hUCB-MSCs is still insufficient, and long-term follow-up results after use are insufficient, indicating the need for additional data and research. We have attempted to prove the efficacy and safety of hUCB-MSC treatment in a comprehensive analysis by including all subjects with knee articular cartilage defect or osteoarthritis who have undergone cartilage repair surgery using hUCB-MSCs. We conducted a meta-analysis and demonstrated efficacy and safety based on a systematic review. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. For this study, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library literature databases up to June 2022. A total of seven studies were included, and quality assessment was performed for each included study using the Newcastle−Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis was performed on the extracted pooled clinical outcome data, and subgroup analyses were completed. Results: A total of 570 patients were included in the analysis. In pooled analysis, the

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
Cartilage, ArticularMesenchymal Stem CellsFetal BloodHumansOsteoarthritis, KneeArthroscopyTreatment OutcomeMesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research