SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysis

Efficacy of Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes in Promoting Diabetic Foot Ulcer Healing: A Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Animal Studies.

Wang X., Pan L., Shen H.

Meta-analysis on Diabetic Foot, Chronic Wound, published in J Diabetes Res (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
J Diabetes Res (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
41846240
DOI
10.1155/jdr/2578542

Abstract (original English)

The objective of the study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and mechanisms of action of stem cell-derived exosomes from various sources (including adipose tissue [AD-MSCs] and bone marrow [BM-MSCs]) in treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) based on preclinical evidence. A computerized search was performed across multiple databases including PubMed, CBM, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang, CNKI, the Cochrane Library, and VIP. The search period covered the period from their inception through December 2024. The search is aimed at identifying all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using animal models of DFU. Ten studies involving 239 animals were included in the final meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4. The risk of bias was assessed with SYRCLE's tool. The pooled results demonstrated that stem cell-derived exosomes significantly promoted wound healing, evidenced by increased wound healing rates on Day 7 (SMD = 8.41, 95% CI: 4.06-12.75, p < 0.001; I 2 = 91%) and Day 14 (SMD = 4.89, 95% CI: 3.63-6.14, p < 0.001; I 2 = 0%). Furthermore, exosome treatment enhanced neovascularization density (SMD = 7.78, 95% CI: 6.04-9.52, p < 0.001), collagen deposition (SMD = 8.59, 95% CI: 2.16-15.03, p < 0.05), and reduced levels of inflammatory markers (TNF-α and CD86). Subgroup analyses revealed that the administration dose was a m

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
AnimalsDiabetic FootDisease Models, AnimalExosomesNeovascularization, PhysiologicStem CellsWound Healing
HipAnkle & FootDiabetic FootChronic Wound
View on PubMedDOI

Related research