Experimental Treatments for Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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)

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is characterized by a complex and prolonged injury process that exacerbates the damage induced by the primary injury and inhibits the potential for regeneration. SCI frequently results in the devastating loss of neurological functions and thus has serious consequences on patient quality of life. Current treatments are limited and focus on early interventions for the acute management of complications. Therefore, the development of novel treatments targeting ongoing injury processes is required to improve SCI outcomes. We aimed to systematically review studies published in the last 10 years that examined experimental treatments with neuroregenerative and neuroprotective capabilities for the improvement of SCI. We analyzed treatments from 44 studies that were identified through a systematic literature search using three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE (searched through Ovid). We performed a meta-analysis for Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotion test data and collected immunohistochemistry results to demonstrate neuroregenerative and neuroprotective properties of the treatments, respectively. The two treatments that illustrated the most significant improvements in functional recovery using the BBB test were the combined use of tetrahedral framework nucleic acid (tFNA) with neural stem cells (NSCs) and Fortasyn ® Connect (FC) supplementation

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.