Combination of stem cells and nerve guide conduit for the treatment of peripheral nerve injury: A meta-analysis.
Cao S., Yihao W., Qi T., Xiong A., Liu P., Chen Y.
Meta-analysis, published in Muscle Nerve (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Muscle Nerve (2023)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 38063327
- DOI
- 10.1002/mus.28018
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
Introduction/aims Many small-sized, single-center preclinical studies have investigated the benefits of introducing stem cells into the interior of nerve conduit. The aims of this meta-analysis are to review and contrast the effects of various types of stem cells in in vivo models used to reconstruct peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) and to assess the reliability and stability of the available evidence. Methods A systematic search was conducted using Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science to identify studies conducted from January 1, 2000, to September 21, 2022, and investigate stem cell therapy in peripheral nerve reconstruction animal models. Studies that met the relevant criteria were deemed eligible for this meta-analysis. Results Fifty-five preclinical studies with a total of 1234 animals were incorporated. Stem cells demonstrated a positive impact on peripheral nerve regeneration at different follow-up times in the forest plots of five outcome indicators: compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude, latency, muscle mass ratio, nerve conduction velocity, and sciatic functional index (SFI). In most comparisons, stem cell groups showed substantial differences compared with the control groups. The superior performance of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) in terms of SFI, CMAP amplitude, and latency (p Discussion The findings consistently demonstrated a fav
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.