Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for radiation-induced xerostomia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Li SS., Tian XD., Song JK., Wu YD., Wang WL., Tang ZL.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 360, published in Stem Cell Res Ther (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Stem Cell Res Ther (2025)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- 360
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 41390814
- PMCID
- PMC12817539
- DOI
- 10.1186/s13287-025-04824-2
Abstract (original English)
Background Radiation-induced xerostomia (RIX) is a frequent, debilitating complication of head and neck radiotherapy for cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may protect and regenerate salivary glands, but clinical evidence remains fragmented. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy for RIX patients. Methods Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Wiley Online Library, Cochrane, and CNKI were conducted up to July 2025 to identify relevant clinical studies. Two investigators independently screened records. A total of seven trials (n = 360 participants) were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 and R Studio, with unstimulated whole salivary flow rate (UWS) as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included stimulated whole salivary flow rate (SWS), Xerostomia Questionnaire (XQ) scores, and serious adverse events (SAE). Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 and R 4.5.1, with UWS as the primary endpoint. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 and large-study effects by Egger's test. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420250521958). Results Pooled analysis of the seven trials showed a statistically significant but clinically negligible increase in UWS with MSCs compared to controls (WMD = 0.02 mL/min, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.04). No significant differences were found for SWS (WMD = - 0.12 mL/min, 9
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.