Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Efficacy of MSC-derived small extracellular vesicles in treating type II diabetic cutaneous wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal models

Yue G., Li Y., Liu Z., Yu S., Cao Y., Wang X.

Meta-analysis on Diabetic Foot, Chronic Wound, published in Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2024) — 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 Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39076515
PMCID
PMC11284036
DOI
10.3389/fendo.2024.1375632
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Background Small extracellular vesicles derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSC-sEVs) have emerged as a promising therapy for treating type II diabetic cutaneous wounds. Currently, the evidence supporting the use of MSC-sEVs for treating diabetic skin wounds remains inconclusive and is limited to preclinical studies. To facilitate the clinical translation of cell-free therapy, conducting a comprehensive systematic review of preclinical studies assessing the efficacy of MSC-sEVs is imperative. Methods A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until June 14, 2023, to identify studies that met our pre-established inclusion criteria. The outcome indicators comprised wound closure rate (primary outcome), neovascular density, re-epithelialization rate, collagen deposition, and inflammatory factors (secondary Outcomes). A fixed-effects model was employed in instances of low heterogeneity (I 2 2 ≥50%). The risk of bias in animal studies was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. Results Twenty-one studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, MSC-sEVs were found to significantly facilitate the healing of cutaneous wounds in type II diabetic patients (standardized mean difference [SMD]=3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.65 to 3.66, P 2 = 39%). Conclusions According to the meta-analysis of preclinical

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
Mesenchymal Stem CellsSkinAnimalsHumansDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Disease Models, AnimalMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationWound HealingExtracellular Vesicles

Browse all related research

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

Related research