SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Stem cell-derived exosome treatment for acute spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on preclinical evidence.

Mou C., Xia Z., Wang X., Dai X., Wang J., Zhang C.

Systematic Review on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Front Neurol (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
Front Neurol (2025)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
PMID
39926016
DOI
10.3389/fneur.2025.1447414

Abstract (original English)

The study aims were to systematically review and analyze preclinical research on the efficacy of exosomes derived from various mesenchymal stem cell sources (MSC-exos) for the treatment of spinal cord contusion injury (SCI) in small animal models. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases from their inception through February 29, 2024, to identify eligible English-language studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent investigators performed literature screening, data extraction and bias assessment. A total of 235 rats were used to assess locomotor recovery at the initial assessment, and exhibited significant improvement in hind limb movement in those treated with exosomes, as indicated by a statistically significant increase in Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) scores (MD: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.14-1.38, p < 0.01) compared to the controls. This trend persisted in final assessment data across 21 studies, with pooled analysis confirming similar results (MD: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.43-1.68, p < 0.01). Funnel plot analysis indicated asymmetry in the pooled BBB scores at both baseline and endpoint assessments, suggesting potential publication bias. Exosomes were derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord or human placental MSCs. Meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant differences in therapeutic effic

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
Back & SpineSpinal Cord Injury
View on PubMedDOI

Related research