Intranasal administration of stem cells and their derivatives for neurological and respiratory disorders: a systematic review of human clinical trials

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)

Objective This systematic review evaluates the safety, feasibility, tolerability, and efficacy outcomes of intranasally administered stem cells and their derivatives (MSCs, NSCs, secretome, and EVs) for the treatment of neurological and respiratory disorders. Methods A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov for published research from January 2011 to December 2025. A total of 19 studies were included (7 published articles, 12 registry-only or grey literature records). Risk of bias was assessed using two complementary Cochrane tools, the RoB 2 tool for all 19 studies and the ROBINS-I tool for the 6 n-RCTs. Sources of heterogeneity were systematically characterized across 5 clinical dimensions, and structural publication bias was evaluated against a 30% registry-only threshold. A random-effects model was selected for pooled analyses, with a planned subgroup analysis of treatment dosage against adverse events. Effect sizes were extracted using SMD, mean differences, risk ratios, and odds ratios as appropriate per outcome type. Results This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A total of 104 participants were enrolled in 7 published studies, with one completed registry trial (NCT04602104) confirming actual enrolment of an additional 18 participants. No study achieved an over

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.