Efficacy of stem cell therapy in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage: an updated meta-analysis
Li C., Qin H., Zeng L., Hu Z., Chen C.
Meta-analysis, published in Stem Cell Res Ther (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Stem Cell Res Ther (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36064468
- PMCID
- PMC9446670
- DOI
- 10.1186/s13287-022-03158-7
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Background Multiple studies have reported that stem cell therapy has beneficial effects in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, this finding remains inconclusive. This study was performed to systematically determine the effect size of stem cell therapy in ICH animal models by pooling and analyzing data from newly published studies. Methods A literature search identified studies of stem cells in animal models of ICH. We searched mainstream databases from inception to November, 2021. And pooled effect size of stem cells was determined for diversified neurobehavioral scales and structural endpoints using random effects models. Results The median quality score of 62 included studies was 5.32. Our results revealed an overall positive effect of stem cell therapy. More specifically, the SMD was - 2.27 for mNSS, - 2.14 for rotarod test, - 2.06 for MLPT, - 1.33 for cylinder test, - 1.95 for corner turn test, - 1.42 for tissue loss, and - 1.86 for brain water content. For mNSS, classifying comparisons by quality score showed significant differences in estimates of effect size (p = 0.013), and high-quality comparisons showed a better outcome (SMD = - 2.57) compared with low-quality comparisons (SMD = - 1.59). Besides, different delivery routes also showed a significant difference in the estimates of effect size for mNSS (p = 0.002), and the intraperitoneal route showe
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.