Safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Yan C., Hu M., Dai R.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 19, published in Immun Inflamm Dis (2023) — 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
- Immun Inflamm Dis (2023)
- Reported sample size
- 19
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 37773722
- PMCID
- PMC10515507
- DOI
- 10.1002/iid3.1000
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
Background Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is a zoonotic disease that has become a global pandemic. The fast evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic and persist problems make COVID-19 highly infectious; publicly accessible literature and other sources of information continue to expand in volume. The mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) therapy efficacy for COVID-19 is debatable. Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to evaluate the usefulness of MSCs in treating COVID-19. Methods Relevant publications were retrieved from databases up to April 30, 2022. In the case of dichotomous data, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled risk ratio (RR) were estimated with a random effects model (REM) or fixed effects model (FEM). The pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs were calculated with REM or FEM in continuous data. In the outcomes, studies with insufficient or unusable data were reported descriptively. Results A total of eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 464 people were chosen for this SRMA. Relative to the control group, mortality was significantly lower in the MSCs group (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.99, Z = 2.01, p = .04); other secondary outcomes, such as the clinical symptom improvement rate improved in the MSCs group (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.99, Z = 2.24, p = .03), clinical symptom improvement time (MD: -4.01, 95% CI: -6.33, -1.68, Z = 3.38,
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.