Stem cell therapy approaches for non-malignant diseases & non-haematological diseases in India: A systematic review.
Chavan C., Ray S., Kumar CM.
Systematic Review, published in Indian J Med Res (2024) — 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
- Indian J Med Res (2024)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 39737504
- PMCID
- PMC11683502
- DOI
- 10.25259/ijmr_2141_23
Abstract (original English)
Background & objectives Our study aims to provide the diversity of stem cell use for non-malignant, non-haematological diseases in India through the lens of clinical trials. Methods A PRISMA approach was used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stem cell use for the period 2001-2021 in India. The outcomes were measured using each disease category, types of stem cells, the origin of stem cells, safety, and efficacy. Results Of the 9206 studies screened, 61 studies that were relevant to stem cell use for non-malignant diseases were included for analysis. Autologous stem cells (75%) were used predominantly compared to allogenic stem cells (18.33%), followed by mixed type (6.67%). Use of bone marrow-derived stem cells (51%) was dominant, followed by melanocytes (19%), adipose (7%), haematopoietic (12%), and (11%) other types of stem cells. The study revealed 37 randomized clinical trial studies conducted in the government research hospital compared to the non-government. Interpretation & conclusions Maintaining the gold standard for stem cell therapy requires randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes, control groups, failures, adverse effects, etc. It is important to have a monitoring and regulation system in stem cell clinical research activities with enough preclinical data and repeated exchanges between the bench and the bedside.
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.