Reporting of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Preparation Protocols and Composition: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Orthopaedic Literature.
Robinson PG., Murray IR., West CC., Goudie EB., Yong LY., White TO.
Systematic Review, published in Am J Sports Med (2018) — 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Am J Sports Med (2018)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 29554460
- DOI
- 10.1177/0363546518758667
Abstract (original English)
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are increasingly being used in the treatment of a wide variety of sports-related conditions. Despite this enthusiasm, the biological properties of MSCs and their effects on musculoskeletal tissue healing remain poorly understood. MSC-based strategies encompass cell populations with heterogeneous phenotypes isolated from multiple tissues and using different methods. Therefore, comprehensive reporting of the source, preparation methods, and characteristics of MSC strategies is essential to enable interpretation of results. To perform a systematic review of levels of reporting of key variables in MSC preparation and composition for clinical studies evaluating MSC-based therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Systematic review. A systematic review of the clinical orthopaedic and sports medicine literature from 2002 to 2017 was performed. The following inclusion criteria were used: human clinical trials, published in the English language, involving the administration of MSC-based therapies for orthopaedic or sports medicine applications. In vitro or ex vivo studies, editorials, letters to the editor, and studies relating to cosmetic, neurological, or dental applications were excluded. Of the 1259 studies identified on the initial search, 36 studies were found to satisfy the inclusion criteria for analysis on comprehensive review. Fifty
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.