A systematic review of preclinical studies on therapeutic potential of stem cells or stem cells products in peritoneal fibrosis.
Alatab S., Najafi I., Atlasi R., Pourmand G., Tabatabaei-Malazy O., Ahmadbeigi N.
Systematic Review, published in Minerva Urol Nefrol (2017) — 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
- Minerva Urol Nefrol (2017)
- Country
- Italy
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 28362076
- DOI
- 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02882-X
Abstract (original English)
Peritoneal fibrosis remains a serious complication of long-term peritoneal dialysis. Stem cell therapy is an innovative field of scientific investigation with potential for clinical application. Here, we systematically reviewed the studies to determine whether stem cell based therapy could improve the peritoneal fibrosis in experimental models of peritoneal fibrosis. Our systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library yield 5219 article. After screening for eligibility, in vivo, experimental, interventional studies using stem cells in animal models of peritoneal fibrosis; 11 articles were included. The studies underwent comprehensive review, quality assessment, and data extraction. Mesenchymal stem cells were the most used type (90.9%) originated either from bone marrow (70%), adipose tissue (20%), or umbilical cord (10%). In 90.9% of studies, stem cells were injected after peritoneal insult and 63.6% of studies used the intraperitoneal injection route. Eight studies met the ≥50% of criteria indicated by ARRIVE recommendation. Information regarding the nature of ethical review permissions, species, strain and gender, dose, route and duration of treatment, was stated by all studies; 81.8% of the studies reported the number of animals in each group. Adverse events were reported in one study. Improvement in histological parameters including attenuation of
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.