Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Comparison of the Administration Route of Stem Cell Therapy for Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes and Safety

Fauzi AA., Thamrin AMH., Permana AT., Ranuh IGMAR., Hidayati HB., Hamdan M.

Meta-analysis on Stroke Research, published in J Clin Med (2023) — 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
J Clin Med (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37048818
PMCID
PMC10094955
DOI
10.3390/jcm12072735
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Stem cell treatment is emerging as an appealing alternative for stroke patients, but there still needs to be an agreement on the protocols in place, including the route of administration. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the administration routes of stem cell treatment for ischemic stroke. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. A total of 21 publications on stem cell therapy for ischemic stroke were included. Efficacy outcomes were measured using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and the Barthel index (BI). Intracerebral administration showed a better outcome than other routes, but a greater number of adverse events followed due to its invasiveness. Adverse events were shown to be related to the natural history of stroke not to the treatment. However, further investigation is required, since studies have yet to compare the different administration methods directly.

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