Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies for treating well-studied neurological disorders: a systematic review

Patel GD., Liu L., Li A., Yang YH., Shen CC., Brand-Saberi B.

Systematic Review on Spinal Cord Injury, Neuroinflammation, published in Front Med (Lausanne) (2024) — 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
Front Med (Lausanne) (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38601118
PMCID
PMC11004389
DOI
10.3389/fmed.2024.1361723
Citations
7

Abstract (original English)

Background Millions of people across the globe are affected by conditions like Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson's Disease (PD), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), although most occurrences are common in the elderly population. This systematic review aims to highlight the safety of the procedures, their tolerability, and efficacy of the available therapies conducted over the years using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in treating the neurological conditions mentioned above. Methods PubMed was used to search for published data from clinical trials performed using mesenchymal stem cells. Studies that provided the necessary information that mentioned the efficacy and adverse effects of the treatment in patients were considered for this review. Results In total, 43 manuscripts were selected after a strategic search, and these studies have been included in this systematic review. Most included studies reported the safety of the procedures used and the treatment's good tolerability, with mild adverse events such as fever, headache, mild pain at the injection site, or nausea being common. A few studies also reported death of some patients, attributed to the progression of the disease to severe stages before the treatment. Other severe events, such as respiratory or urinary infections reported in some studies, were not relate

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