SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysis

A meta-analysis on application and prospect of cell therapy in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Li H., Chen C., Wang Y., Yi W., Guo P., Yao C.

Meta-analysis on Diabetic Foot, Autoimmune Research, published in Stem Cell Res Ther (2025) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Stem Cell Res Ther (2025)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
PMID
40390031
DOI
10.1186/s13287-025-04377-4

Abstract (original English)

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a grave autoimmune disorder because of no insulin self-generation. Currently, mainly clinical methods exist, serious adverse effects leading to stem cell therapy are considered. The mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), require high differentiation capacity and are judged as crucial in DM treatment. The meta-analysis aimed to systemically analyze the particular types of MSCs which play a more important role in DM and which DM is treated more effectively. A systematic review was conducted on the published literature, clinical trials and observational studies, utilizing databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrial.gov. RevMan software was adopted to draw Forest Plot and Funnel Plot, and subgroup analysis were employed to evaluate heterogeneity between different groups. We identified the meta-analyses of 34 unique random controlled trials and divided our own systematic reviews into 8 groups. The MSCs were associated with placebo (OR = 2.79, 95% CI [1.63, 4.75]), Standard Clinical Treatment (SCT) (OR = 4.12, 95% CI [2.76, 6.14]), and monocyte (OR = 6.52, 95% CI [3.56, 9.48]). The comparison between Autologous MSCs and Allogenic MSCs (OR = 4.64, 95% CI [3.42, 6.31]), Autologous BMMSCs and other MSCs (OR = 5.28, 95% CI [3.64, 7.66]), Allogenic ASCs and UCMSCs (OR = 3.54, 95% CI [1.83, 6.86]), Type I DM and Type II DM (OR = 3.10, 95% CI [1.79, 5.38])

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
HumansCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyDiabetes MellitusMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationMesenchymal Stem Cells
Ankle & FootSystemic / IVDiabetic FootAutoimmune Research
View on PubMedDOI

Related research