4.5 Review

The Efficacy and Safety of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation for Spinal Cord Injury Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

期刊

CELL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 36-46

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0963689718808471

关键词

spinal cord injury; mesenchymal stem cell; cell transplantation; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating disease, with a high rate of disability. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in treating clinical SCI patients. We systematically searched the PUBMED, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical (CBM), Web of Science and Cochrane databases using the strategy of combination of free-text words and MeSH terms. The indicators of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale (AIS)-grading improvement rate and adverse effects were displayed with an overall relative risk (RR). For the continuous variables of the ASIA motor score, light-touch score, pinprick score, activities of daily living (ADL) score, and residual urine volume, we used odds ratio (OR) to analyze the data. Eleven studies comprising 499 patients meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. No serious heterogeneity or publication bias was observed across each study. The results showed that significant improvements of total AIS grade (RR: 3.70; P < 0.001), AIS grade A (RR: 3.57; P < 0.001), ASIA sensory score (OR: 8.63; P < 0.001) and reduction of residual urine volume (OR: -36.37; P = 0.03) were observed in experimental group compared with control group. However, no significant differences of motor score (OR: 1.37, P = 0.19) and ADL score (OR: 2.61, P = 0.27) were observed between experimental and control groups. In addition, there were no serious and permanent adverse effects after cell transplantation. Cell transplantation with MSCs is effective and safe in improving the sensory and bladder functions of SCI patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据