Fixed-effect or random-effect models? A methodological reappraisal of subgroup analyses in mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis.

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)

We commend Cao et al. for their systematic review demonstrating the efficacy of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with non-surgical knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, we reanalyzed their subgroup analyses to evaluate the methodological implications of statistical model selection (fixed-effect vs. random-effect models) on result reliability. In dose-stratified analyses, Cao et al. applied fixed-effect models to low-dose (I 2 = 0%) and high-dose (I 2 = 80%) MSC subgroups. Upon reanalysis using random-effect models, the high-dose group showed no statistically significant differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores compared to the control group at 6 months [MD = 8.75; 95% CI (-2.10, 19.61); P = 0.11] or 12 months [MD = 12.68; 95% CI (-4.96, 30.32); P = 0.16], contrasting with Cao et al.'s original findings. The low-dose subgroup, with no heterogeneity, yielded identical results across both models. Similarly, in cell-source stratification (adipose-derived MSCs [ADMSCs] vs. bone marrow-derived MSCs [BM-MSCs]), reanalysis of ADMSCs using random-effect models demonstrated significant 6-month WOMAC improvement [MD = 9.32; 95% CI (3.73, 14.92); P = 0.001] but non-significant 12-month differences [MD = 12.90; 95% CI (-1.76, 27.55); P = 0.08], diverging from Cao e

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.