Therapeutic effects of mesenchymal stem cells and their secretomes (extracellular vesicles) with bone-implant scaffolds for bone regeneration: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of preclinical studies.
Lu Z., Chen H., Chang H., Xiong Y., Miao X., Zhang C.
Meta-analysis, published in Acta Biomater (2026) — 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
- Acta Biomater (2026)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 41722744
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.actbio.2026.02.031
Abstract (original English)
Tissue-engineering strategies combining mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) or extracellular vesicles (EVs) with bone-regenerative scaffolds may improve healing of critical-size bone defects, yet their comparative efficacy remains unclear. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest for animal studies published up to July 1, 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. New bone formation was synthesized as bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) using conventional meta-analysis and Bayesian network fixed/random-effects models, reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI)/credible interval (CrI). Subgroup analyses were conducted by MSC source, EV use, scaffold type, anatomical site, and follow-up duration, with sensitivity analyses and assessment of publication bias. In total, 207 studies across 7 animal models were included. MSC-loaded scaffolds significantly enhanced bone regeneration compared with no treatment or scaffold alone, showing a strong short-term effect and consistent benefits at medium and long follow-up. Bone marrow MSC (BMSC)-laden scaffolds underperformed adipose-derived MSC (ADSC)-laden scaffolds, and BMSC-derived EVs further improved outcomes compared with cell-free scaffolds. Calvarial defect models demonstrated greater gains than long-bone models. Network meta-analysis suggested multi-compo
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.