Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Regenerative Therapy in Osteoarthritis Using Umbilical Cord-Origin Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Critical Appraisal of Clinical Safety and Efficacy Through Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lohrasbi E., Babaie S., Hamedfar H., Pourzeinali S., Farshbaf-Khalili A., Toopchizadeh V.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 688 on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, published in Stem Cells Int (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
Stem Cells Int (2025)
Reported sample size
688
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41378180
PMCID
PMC12688636
DOI
10.1155/sci/4261166
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Recent decades have witnessed a high prevalence of knee osteoarthritis among adults, which is associated with chronic pain, functional limitations, and decreased quality of life. Given the ineffectiveness of conventional cartilage regeneration approaches, umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) have emerged as a potential regenerative therapy. In this study, it was aimed to determine whether UC-MSC treatment for knee osteoarthritis is effective, safe, and what is the optimal dosage to achieve optimal outcomes. Methods This study was conducted as a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the PRISMA 2020 guideline. The dose of cells was divided into four groups: less than 25 × 10 6 (low), 25-50 × 10 6 (medium), more than 50 × 10 6 (high), and cases with no dose reported. An extensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other sources up to September 2025. Randomized, phase I/II, and quasi-experimental clinical trial studies that used UC-MSCs in human patients with osteoarthritis were included in the analysis. Cochrane RoB and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the quality of studies, and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results Of the 1427 identified articles, 8 studies with a total of 688 participants were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Although

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