Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles and Plant-Derived Nanovesicles as Cell-Free Therapies for Thermal Burn Healing: A Systematic Review of Preclinical Evidence and Delivery Strategies

Amarandei AH., Avadanei-Luca S., Bulgaru-Iliescu AI., Moraru DC., Solovastru DFG., Constantinescu MC.

Systematic Review on Chronic Wound, Burns, Scar, Chronic Inflammation, published in Med Sci (Basel) (2026) — 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
Med Sci (Basel) (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42201032
PMCID
PMC13214687
DOI
10.3390/medsci14020240

Abstract (original English)

Background/Objectives: Thermal injuries represent a significant global health burden, often complicated by hypertrophic scarring, chronic inflammation, and delayed re-epithelialization. While Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) transplantation has shown promise, its clinical translation is hindered by risks of tumorigenicity and immunological concerns. This study evaluates the efficacy of cell-free Extracellular Vesicle (EV) therapy-derived from both mammalian MSCs and plant sources (PDNVs)-as standardized, off-the-shelf alternatives. This study synthesizes evidence focusing on re-epithelialization velocity, angiogenic activity, and anti-fibrotic outcomes, while assessing the impact of second-generation delivery scaffolds on therapeutic durability. Methods: Conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261305379), this review interrogated PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published between 2015 and 2026. Eligible studies included in vivo animal models of thermal injury using purified vesicles from mammalian MSC sources or plant-derived nanovesicles compared with placebo, standard care, or untreated controls. Data were synthesized narratively; methodological quality was appraised using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool and compliance with MISEV guidelines. Results: Synthesis of 50 studies revealed that vesicle-based interventions c

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
Mesenchymal Stem CellsAnimalsHumansPlantsBurnsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationWound HealingExtracellular Vesicles

Browse all related research

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

Related research