SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury in Rat Models: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Wang Y., Ding Y., Guo C.

Systematic Review on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Cell Transplant (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Cell Transplant (2024)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
38910431
DOI
10.1177/09636897241262992

Abstract (original English)

Transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is one of the hopeful treatments for spinal cord injury (SCI). Most current studies are in animals, and less in humans, and the optimal transplantation strategy for MSCs is still controversial. In this article, we explore the optimal transplantation strategy of MSCs through a network meta-analysis of the effects of MSCs on SCI in animal models. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed) databases were searched by computer for randomized controlled studies on MSCs for SCI. Two investigators independently completed the literature screening and data extraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.4 software was used to assess the quality of the included literature. Stata 16.0 software was used for standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous variables to combine the statistics and calculate 95% confidence interval (95% CI). P < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference. Cochrane's Q test and the I 2 value were used to indicate the magnitude of heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used if I 2 > 50% and P < 0.10 indicated significant heterogeneity be

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
AnimalsHumansRatsDisease Models, AnimalMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationMesenchymal Stem CellsSpinal Cord Injuries
Face & SkinBack & SpineSpinal Cord Injury
View on PubMedDOI

Related research