Stem cell therapy for erectile dysfunction of cavernous nerve injury rats: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Shan H., Chen F., Zhang T., He S., Xu L., Wei A.
Meta-analysis, published in PLoS One (2015) — 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
- PLoS One (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 25860455
- PMCID
- PMC4393097
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0121428
- Citations
- 35
Abstract (original English)
Introduction Stem cell treatment is a novel therapeutic strategy for erectile dysfunction (ED) patients with bilateral cavernous nerve injury (CNI). The relative animal studies provide important clues to design pre-clinical studies and clinical studies further in the future. Purpose This study aims to evaluate the effects and influential factors of stem cell transplantation on ED rats with CNI. Materials and methods We searched PubMed and EBSCO databases published before April 30, 2014 for pre-clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy of stem cell transplantation in the treatment of ED rats with CNI. A systematic review and a planned subgroup analysis were performed to identify whether or not some certain influential factors could bring significant effects on stem cell treatment. Results 12 studies with 319 rats were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis results confirmed the efficacy of stem cell transplantation. Subgroup analysis results showed that treatment effects were not related to CNI models, follow-up time, stem cell species, stem cell sources, markers and delivery approaches in the transplantation. Uncultured stem cells were poorly effective compared with cultured stem cells. Periprostatic implantation (PPI) with acellular scaffolds could promote cavernous nerve regeneration, but was less effective for smooth muscle cell recovery. Stem cells modified by NGF
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.