Efficacy of stem cell therapy for burn wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies

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

Abstract (original English)

Background Burns remain a serious public health problem with high morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. Although there are various treatment options available, there is no consensus on the best treatment for severe burns as of yet. Stem cell therapy has a bright prospect in many preclinical studies of burn wounds. The systematic review was performed for these preclinical studies to assess the efficacy and possible mechanisms of stem cells in treating burn wounds. Methods Twenty-two studies with 595 animals were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 13 May 2020. In addition, a manual search of references of studies was performed to obtain potential studies. No language or time restrictions were enforced. RevMan 5.3 was used for all data analysis. Results The overall meta-analysis showed that stem cell therapy significantly improved burn healing rate (SMD 3.06, 95% CI 1.98 to 4.14), irrespective of transplant type, burn area, and treatment method in the control group. Subgroup analyses indicated that hair follicle stem cells seemed to exert more beneficial effects on animals with burn wounds (SMD 7.53, 95% CI 3.11 to 11.95) compared with other stem cells. Furthermore, stem cell therapy seemed to exert more beneficial effects on burn wounds with second-degree (SMD 7.53, 95% CI 3.11 to 11.95) compared with third-

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.

Browse all related research

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