Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells for treating patients with knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis toward the establishment of effective regenerative rehabilitation

Iijima H., Isho T., Kuroki H., Takahashi M., Aoyama T.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 2385 on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in NPJ Regen Med (2018) — 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
NPJ Regen Med (2018)
Reported sample size
2385
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
30245848
PMCID
PMC6141619
DOI
10.1038/s41536-018-0041-8
Citations
75

Abstract (original English)

This systematic review with a meta-analysis aimed to summarize the current evidence of the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether rehabilitation is an effect modifier of the effect estimate of MSC treatment. A literature search yielded 659 studies, of which 35 studies met the inclusion criteria ( n = 2385 patients; mean age: 36.0-74.5 years). The meta-analysis results suggested that MSC treatment through intra-articular injection or arthroscopic implantation significantly improved knee pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.94, -0.96), self-reported physical function (SMD: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.92), and cartilage quality (SMD: -1.99; 95% CI: -3.51, -0.47). However, the MSC treatment efficacy on cartilage volume was limited (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: -0.19, 1.16). Minor adverse events (knee pain or swelling) were reported with a wide-ranging prevalence of 2-60%; however, no severe adverse events occurred. The evidence for these outcomes was "very low" to "low" according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system because of the poor study design, high risk of bias, large heterogeneity, and wide 95% CI of the effects estimate. Performing rehabilitation was significantly associated with better SMD for self-reported physical function (regression

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