Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Efficacy of extracellular vesicles as a cell-free therapy in colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies

Hou JJ., Li WW., Wang XL., Ma AH., Qin YH.

Meta-analysis on Chronic Inflammation, published in Front Pharmacol (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
Front Pharmacol (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37954844
PMCID
PMC10637393
DOI
10.3389/fphar.2023.1260134
Citations
6

Abstract (original English)

Background: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) mediate inflammation, immune responses, gut barrier integrity, and intestinal homeostasis. Recently, the application of EVs in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been under intensive focus. Some studies have been conducted in animal models of colitis, while systematic reviews and meta-analyses are lacking. The current study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the efficacy of EVs on IBD. Methods: A systematic retrieval of all studies in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library reported the effects of EVs in the colitis model up to 22 June 2023. The methodological quality was assessed based on SYRCLE's risk of bias (RoB) tool. Disease activity index (DAI), myeloperoxidase activity (MPO), histopathological score (HS), and inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, NF-κB, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-10) were extracted as analysis indicators by Web Plot Digitizer 4.5. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the standardized mean difference and 95% confidence interval using random-effect models by Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 14.0 software. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Although the heterogeneity between studies and the potential publication bias limits confidence in the extent of the benefit, EV treatment was superior to the control in the

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