Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMedOpen access

Efficacy of adipose tissue-derived stem cells in locomotion recovery after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis on animal studies.

Rafiei Alavi SN., Madani Neishaboori A., Hossein H., Sarveazad A., Yousefifard M.

Meta-analysis on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Syst Rev (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
Syst Rev (2021)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
34330329
PMCID
PMC8325264
DOI
10.1186/s13643-021-01771-w
Citations
16

Abstract (original English)

Considerable disparities exist on the use of adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) for treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). Hence, the current systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy of ADSCs in locomotion recovery following SCI in animal models. A search was conducted in electronic databases of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science until the end of July 2019. Reference and citation tracking and searching Google and Google Scholar search engines were performed to achieve more studies. Animal studies conducted on rats having SCI which were treated with ADSCs were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were lacking a non-treated control group, not evaluating locomotion, non-rat studies, not reporting the number of transplanted cells, not reporting isolation and preparation methods of stem cells, review articles, combination therapy, use of genetically modified ADSCs, use of induced pluripotent ADSCs, and human trials. Risk of bias was assessed using Hasannejad et al.'s proposed method for quality control of SCI-animal studies. Data were analyzed in STATA 14.0 software, and based on a random effect model, pooled standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval was presented. Of 588 non-duplicated papers, data from 18 articles were included. Overall risk of bias was high risk in 8 studies, some concern in 9 studies and low risk in 1 study. Curr

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
Adipose TissueAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHumansLocomotionRatsRecovery of FunctionSpinal Cord InjuriesStem Cells

Browse all related research

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

Related research