Effect of stem cell treatment on burn wounds: A systemic review and a 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)

A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of stem cells treatment in managing burn wounds. A systematic literature search up to March 2022 incorporated 24 studies reported between 2013 and 2021 including 400 animals with burn wounds at the beginning of the study; 211 were using stem cells treatment, and 189 controlled. Statistical tools like the contentious method were used within a random or fixed-influence model to establish the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the influence of stem cells treatment in managing burn wounds. Stem cells treatment had a significantly higher burn wound healing rate (MD, 15.18; 95% CI, 11.29-19.07, P < .001), higher blood vessel number (MD, 12.28; 95% CI, 10.06-14.51, P < .001), higher vascular endothelial growth factor (MD, 10.24; 95% CI, 7.19-13.29, P < .001), lower interleukin-1 level (MD, -98.48; 95% CI, -155.33 to -41.63, P < .001), and lower tumour necrosis factor α level (MD, -28.71; 95% CI, -46.65 to -10.76, P < .002) compared with control in animals' models with burn wounds. Stem cells treatment had a significantly higher burn wound healing rate, higher blood vessel number, higher vascular endothelial growth factor, lower interleukin-1 level, and lower tumour necrosis factor α level compared with control in animals' models with burn wounds. Further studies are required to validate these findin

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.