Neural stem cell transplantation in rodent models of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Song Y., Liu F., Xu J., Wu W., Xiao Y., Jia Y.
Meta-analysis, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026) — 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
- Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 42256717
- PMCID
- PMC13233701
- DOI
- 10.3389/fbioe.2026.1823886
Abstract (original English)
Background Neural stem cell (NSC) transplantation holds significant promise as a treatment for traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, its therapeutic effects are inconsistent. To address this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of NSC transplantation in preclinical studies. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published up to January 2024 that investigated the effects of NSC transplantation in rodent models of TBI. The primary outcome was the modified Neurological Severity Score (mNSS), and the secondary outcome was lesion volume. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) checklist. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 17.0. Results A total of 18 preclinical studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting 11 outcomes associated with the mNSS and 18 outcomes associated with lesion volume. The quality assessment based on the CAMARADES checklist yielded a median score of 7.00 (interquartile range: 6.25-7.00). The meta-analysis revealed that NSC transplantation significantly reduced the mNSS (SMD = -0.96; 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.51) and lesion volume (SMD = -0.99; 95% CI: -1
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.