Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMedOpen access

Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

Vadalà G., Russo F., Papalia GF., Ambrosio L., Tucci M., Petrucci G.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 736 on Back Pain, Disc Degeneration, published in Neurospine (2025) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Neurospine (2025)
Country
Korea (South)
Reported sample size
736
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41508590
PMCID
PMC12784027
DOI
10.14245/ns.2551046.523
NCT
NCT03692221
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

This study aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for chronic discogenic low back pain (LBP). A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Eligible studies included published and ongoing clinical trials assessing intradiscal MSC injections in patients with chronic discogenic LBP unresponsive to conservative treatment. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment was performed through MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies) and RoB 2 tools. Within- and between-group differences were expressed as means and 95% confidence intervals. Effect sizes were calculated through Cohen d and g. Data from 10 published clinical studies (n=736; 470 in treatment and 266 in control groups) revealed a mean age of 41.5 years and an average follow-up of 21.6 (range, 6-72) months. Various MSC sources were employed, including autologous and allogeneic bone marrow-derived MSCs and adipose-derived MSCs, with doses ranging from 6×10⁶ to over 50×10⁶ cells/disc. Visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and quality-of-life questionnaires indicated modest improvements in pain, disability, and functional status. Additionally, magnetic resonance imaging assessments occasionally demonstrated increase

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