Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Strategies Based on 15 Types of Stem Cells in Animal Models.

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

Abstract (original English)

Objective: The optimal therapeutic strategies of stem cells for spinal cord injury (SCI) are fully explored in animal studies to promote the translation of preclinical findings to clinical practice, also to provide guidance for future animal experiments and clinical studies. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wangfang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception to September 2021. Screening of search results, data extraction, and references quality evaluation were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Results and Discussion: A total of 188 studies were included for data analysis. Results of traditional meta-analysis showed that all 15 diverse types of stem cells could significantly improve locomotor function of animals with SCI, and results of further network meta-analysis showed that adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells had the greatest therapeutic potential for SCI. Moreover, a higher dose (≥1 × 106) of stem cell transplantation had better therapeutic effect, transplantation in the subacute phase (3-14 days, excluding 3 days) was the optimal timing, and intralesional transplantation was the optimal route. However, the evidence of current animal studies is of limited quality, and more high-quality research is needed to further explore the optimal therapeutic strategies of stem cells, while the design and implementation of experiments, as well as measurement an

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.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.