Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Feasibility of cell therapy in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of 83 studies

Ardeshiry Lajimi A., Hagh MF., Saki N., Mortaz E., Soleimani M., Rahim F.

Systematic Review on Neuroinflammation, published in Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res (2013)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
24505515
PMCID
PMC3913133
Citations
14

Abstract (original English)

Multiple Sclerosis is an inflammatory disease of the central nervous system in which T cells experience a second phase of activation, which ultimately leads to axonal demyelination and neurological disability. The recent advances in stem cell therapies may serve as potential treatments for neurological disorders. There are broad types of stem cells such as neural, embryonic, mesenchymal and hematopoietic stem cells with unprecedented hope in treating many debilitating diseases. In this paper we will review the substantial literature regarding experimental and clinical use of these stem cells and possible mechanisms in the treatment of MS. These results may pave the road for the utilization of stem cells for the treatment of MS.

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research