Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

The Comparative Effects of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury in Humans and Animal Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Johnson LDV., Pickard MR., Johnson WEB.

Meta-analysis on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Biology (Basel) (2021) — 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
Biology (Basel) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33809684
PMCID
PMC8001771
DOI
10.3390/biology10030230
Citations
28

Abstract (original English)

Animal models have been used in preclinical research to examine potential new treatments for spinal cord injury (SCI), including mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation. MSC transplants have been studied in early human trials. Whether the animal models represent the human studies is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis has examined the effects of MSC transplants in human and animal studies. Following searches of PubMed, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Library, published papers were screened, and data were extracted and analysed. MSC transplantation was associated with significantly improved motor and sensory function in humans, and significantly increased locomotor function in animals. However, there are discrepancies between the studies of human participants and animal models, including timing of MSC transplant post-injury and source of MSCs. Additionally, difficulty in the comparison of functional outcome measures across species limits the predictive nature of the animal research. These findings have been summarised, and recommendations for further research are discussed to better enable the translation of animal models to MSC-based human clinical therapy.

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research