Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMedOpen access

Which is the most effective one in knee osteoarthritis treatment from mesenchymal stem cells obtained from different sources?-A systematic review with conventional and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trial

Wei ZJ., Wang QQ., Cui ZG., Inadera H., Jiang X., Wu CA.

Meta-analysis on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, Cartilage Damage, published in Ann Transl Med (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Ann Transl Med (2021)
Country
China
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
33850849
PMCID
PMC8039709
DOI
10.21037/atm-20-5116
Citations
33

Abstract (original English)

Background Due to varying degrees of difficulty in obtaining different mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), the distinct pain levels and treatment costs, and for providing concrete evidence for future clinical practice, a thorough comparison of all relevant MSCs remained critical. Hence, this study aimed to achieve this objective to compare the efficacy of MSCs obtained from different sources in clinical outcomes and cartilage repair of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods The EmBase, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared MSCs from different sources with placebo or each other in KOA patients. Conventional meta-analysis and frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. The primary clinical outcome was pain relief. The frequentist NMA was conducted using Stata with the "network" command. Results Eight studies (seven trials) involving 203 KOA patients were included in this meta-analysis. The MSCs were considered superior over placebo for pain relief and improved function in KOA, but showed no statistically significant differences for cartilage regeneration. Among all the MSCs, the adipose tissue-derived MSCs (AD-MSCs) most effectively relieved pain. Conclusion These findings suggested that MSCs are effective in the treating of KOA. AD-MSCs might be the most effective for relieving pain, and Umb

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

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research