The efficacy of adipose-derived stem cells in burn injuries: a systematic review.

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)

Background Burn injuries can be associated with prolonged healing, infection, a substantial inflammatory response, extensive scarring, and eventually death. In recent decades, both the mortality rates and long-term survival of severe burn victims have improved significantly, and burn care research has increasingly focused on a better quality of life post-trauma. However, delayed healing, infection, pain and extensive scar formation remain a major challenge in the treatment of burns. ADSCs, a distinct type of mesenchymal stem cells, have been shown to improve the healing process. The aim of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of ADSCs in the treatment of burn injuries. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science and Embase. The basic research question was formulated with the PICO framework, whereby the usage of ADSCs in the treatment of burns in vivo was determined as the fundamental inclusion criterion. Additionally, pertinent journals focusing on burns and their treatment were screened manually for eligible studies. The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported according to the PRISMA statement. Results Of the 599 publications screened, 21 were considered relevant to the key question and were included in the present review. The included studies were almost all conducted on rodents, with one exceptio

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.