4.4 Article

Efficacy of Autologous Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cell Transplantation Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Journal

DIABETES THERAPY
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 535-547

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13300-019-0578-6

Keywords

Autologous bone marrow-derived stem cell; Insulin sensitivity; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Funding

  1. Innovation Fund for Outstanding Talents of Henan Puyan [100,308]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionStudies of the effects of stem cell therapy on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have not reached consistent results. Our meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of autologous bone marrow-derived stem cells (ABM-MNCs) on T2DM.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1980 and May 2018. Two researchers screened the literature independently following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the pooled standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on either a fixed- or random-effects model.ResultsWe identified six studies with 206 participants investigating the effects of autologous bone marrow stem cell therapy on T2DM after screening 102 studies found after the initial search. According to the pooled estimates, compared with the control group, after 12-month follow-up the ABM-MNC therapy group had a lower level of HbA1c (MD, -1.18; 95% CI, -1.40 to 0.95) and lower required insulin dose (MD, -2.05; 95% CI, -3.55 to -0.55). HbA1c decreased after ABM-MNC therapy compared with before (12months: MD, -1.22; 95% CI, -1.43 to -1.0). We also observed a significant decrease in insulin requirement after 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up in the ABM-MNC group, respectively.ConclusionAutologous stem cell therapy showed a beneficial effect on T2DM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available