ReviewStem cells international2016
Impact of Timing following Acute Myocardial Infarction on Efficacy and Safety of Bone Marrow Stem Cells Therapy: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Stem cells international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rational transplant timing and dose of mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Stem cell research & therapy · 2017Pooled it
- Stem Cell Therapy for Myocardial Infarction Recovery: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- The hope, hype and obstacles surrounding cell therapy.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Review
- Severely Damaged Freeze-Injured Skeletal Muscle Reveals Functional Impairment, Inadequate Repair, and Opportunity for Human Stem Cell Application.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Analyzing Impetus of Regenerative Cellular Therapeutics in Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Turning regenerative technologies into treatment to repair myocardial injuries.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2020Review
- Optimization of Timing and Times for Administration of Atorvastatin-Pretreated Mesenchymal Stem Cells in a Preclinical Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction.Stem cells translational medicine · 2019Article
- Immunoregulatory potential of mesenchymal stem cells following activation by macrophage-derived soluble factors.Stem cell research & therapy · 2019Article
- Inverse opal substrate-loaded mesenchymal stem cells contribute to decreased myocardial remodeling after transplantation into acute myocardial infarction mice.International journal of nanomedicine · 2018Article
- Bone marrow CD34Stem cell research & therapy · 2017Article
- Dynamic Edematous Response of the Human Heart to Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Assessing Myocardial Area at Risk and Salvage.Circulation · 2017Article
- Strategy to Prime the Host and Cells to Augment Therapeutic Efficacy of Progenitor Cells for Patients with Myocardial Infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. The optimal timing for Bone Marrow Stem Cells (BMCs) therapy following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. Aims. To synthesize the evidence from trials using a multiple-treatment comparison method, thereby permitting a broader comparison across multiple timing of BMCs therapy. Methods and Results. Randomized controlled trials in patients with AMI receiving BMCs therapy were identified from PubMed, Ovid LWW, BIOSIS Previews, and the Cochrane Library through January 2015. 2 035 patients of 31 studies included in our analysis were allocated to 5 groups' treatments: 1~3 days, 4~7 days, 8~14 days, 15~30 days, or placebo/control group. The multiple-treatment meta-analysis showed that 4~7 days' group could lead to significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as compared with control (mean of MDs and 95% CI: 6 months, 3.05 (0.92~5.25); 12 months, 4.18 (2.30~5.84)). Only 4~7 days led to significant reduction of MACEs compared with control (OR and 95% CI 0.34 (0.13~0.96)) for 12-months follow-up. In simulated comparisons, the 4~7 days' group ranked better than other timing groups for improvement of LVEF or reduction of the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. Conclusions. 4~7 days after AMI might be the optimal timing for cell therapy in terms of efficacy or safety.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.