Evaluating the quality of studies reporting on clinical applications of stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review and proposed reporting guidelines (CLINIC-STRA-SVF).
Ferreira MY., Carvalho Junior JDC., Ferreira LM.
Systematic Review, published in Regen Ther (2023) — 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Regen Ther (2023)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 37662694
- PMCID
- PMC10474569
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.reth.2023.08.003
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Background The stromal vascular fraction (SVF) has been widely explored in a number of therapeutic applications in several specialties. Its therapeutic potential is being increasingly demonstrated, although its mechanism of action is still unclear. Objective To evaluate the quality of studies reporting on clinical applications of SVF. Method This is a systematic literature review that followed the PRISMA guidelines with the search of the studies from December 1, 2012, to December 1, 2022, in the following databases: MEDLINE, LILACS and EMBASE. The level of evidence of the studies was assessed using the GRADE system, and the rigor used in the publication of the results was assessed in relation to adherence to the guidelines indicated by the EQUATOR Network Group. The CLINIC - STRA-SVF reporting guideline was developed after the completion of this systematic review. Results A total of 538 articles were found, and 77 articles were selected after reading the titles and abstracts and removing duplicates. Then, 15 studies were removed for not meeting the inclusion criteria, leaving 62 studies. The CLINIC - STRA-SVF was developed and consists of 33 items and two tables. Conclusion There is scientific evidence, although mostly with a low level of evidence, that the use of SVF in clinical applications is safe and effective. The information published in these studies should be standardiz
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.