Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Mesenchymal stem cells in orthopaedics: A systematic review of applications to practice.

Malige A., Gates C., Cook JL.

Systematic Review on Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, published in J Orthop (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
J Orthop (2024)
Country
India
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
39035449
DOI
10.1016/j.jor.2024.06.026

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have alluring interest for clinical use in orthopaedics based on their therapeutic potential through directed pluripotent differentiation. While many studies and reviews have discussed the importance of this approach, few have reduced it to practice using reproducible criteria. This study was designed to systematically review and synthesize current evidence regarding clinical use of clearly defined MSCs in orthopaedics. Studies of any level of evidence and sample size, regardless of MSC source, orthopaedic pathology, and patient population, were reviewed. In vitro and animal studies, and articles written in a language other than English, were excluded. Studies were then screened for final inclusion based on documented MSC verification using testing of the therapeutic cellular population for at least one of the following phenotypic markers: CD 73, CD 90, and CD 105. In addition, therapeutic cellular populations could not have higher percentages of CD34, CD45, CD14, HLA-DR, CD11b, or CD19 markers compared to the aforementioned markers. From each studies' results, sample size, procedural methods, radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient-report outcomes (PROs), and adverse events were tabulated. Overall, 43 studies were included. Twenty-three studies (53.5 %) derived their MSCs from iliac crest bone marrow while 12 (27.9 %) studied adipose-der

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