A combination of mesenchymal stem cells and scaffolds promotes motor functional recovery in spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Abstract (original English)

There is controversy about the role of scaffolds as an adjunctive therapy to mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation in spinal cord injury (SCI). Thus, the authors aimed to design a meta-analysis on preclinical evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of combination therapy of scaffold + MSC transplantation in comparison with scaffolds alone and MSCs alone in improving motor dysfunction in SCI. Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception until the end of August 2018. Two independent reviewers screened related experimental studies. Animal studies that evaluated the effectiveness of scaffolds and/or MSCs on motor function recovery following experimental SCI were included. The findings were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 34 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Analyses show that combination therapy in comparison with the scaffold group alone (SMD 2.00, 95% CI 1.53-2.46, p < 0.0001), the MSCs alone (SMD 1.58, 95% CI 0.84-2.31, p < 0.0001), and the nontreated group (SMD 3.52, 95% CI 2.84-4.20, p < 0.0001) significantly improved motor function recovery. Co-administration of MSCs + scaffolds only in the acute phase of injury (during the first 3 days after injury) leads to a significant recovery compared to scaffold alone (SMD 2.18, p < 0.0001). In addition

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.

Browse all related research

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