SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Poor consideration of tissue loading in randomised trials of MSC interventions for tendon pathology: A systematic review using the TIDieR framework.

Dyck B., Clifford C., Hendry GJ., Hopper GP., Hamilton DF.

Systematic Review on Tendon Injury, Rotator Cuff, published in J Exp Orthop (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
Systematic Review
Journal
J Exp Orthop (2025)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
PMID
40718551
DOI
10.1002/jeo2.70388

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) interventions are a new frontier in the clinical management of tendon injury. In terms of tissue repair and regeneration, both tendon cells and stem cells are mechanotransductive, i.e. they require mechanical stimulus, it therefore follows that well-structured post-intervention rehabilitation is needed to support MSC interventions and should be well considered in MSC clinical trials. This review evaluates the completeness of reporting of rehabilitation following MSC interventions for tendon pathology in clinical trials. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. We applied a PICO framework to inform our search strategy to find clinical trials that used either bone marrow or adipose-derived MSCs as an intervention on human tendons. Electronic searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus, from inception to May 2024. MeSH terms and Boolean operators were employed, with English language the only filter. Data was extracted to complete the TIDieR checklist separately by three researchers and cross checked by a third to ensure consistency. The Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 was employed to review trial internal validity. The s

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
KneeShoulderAnkle & FootTendon InjuryRotator Cuff
View on PubMedDOI

Related research