Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27244556›Full record

SynthesisPLoS biology2016

Olfactory Ensheathing Cell Transplantation in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury: Effect size and Reporting Bias of 62 Experimental Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ralf Watzlawick, Julian Rind, Emily S Sena, Benedikt Brommer, Tian Zhang, Marcel A Kopp, Ulrich Dirnagl, Malcolm R Macleod, David W Howells, Jan M Schwab

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Is cell transplantation a reliable therapeutic strategy for spinal cord injury in clinical practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis from 22 clinical controlled trials.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pediatric Spinal Cord Injury: A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Cell transplantation to repair the injured spinal cord.International review of neurobiology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Ralf WatzlawickDepartment of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7886-3314
Julian RindDepartment of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6456-7135
Emily S SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Benedikt BrommerDepartment of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3362-9780
Tian ZhangCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8059-0677
Marcel A KoppCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6832-9599
Ulrich DirnaglCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Malcolm R MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-9839
David W HowellsStroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jan M SchwabDepartment of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEBoston University · USFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health · AUGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DEUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Olfactory ensheathing cell (OEC) transplantation is a candidate cellular treatment approach for human spinal cord injury (SCI) due to their unique regenerative potential and autologous origin. The objective of this study was, through a meta-epidemiologic approach, (i) to assess the efficacy of OEC transplantation on locomotor recovery after traumatic experimental SCI and (ii) to estimate the likelihood of reporting bias and/or missing data. A study protocol was finalized before data collection. Embedded into a systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted a literature research of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science from 1949/01 to 2014/10 with no language restrictions, screened by two independent investigators. Studies were included if they assessed neurobehavioral improvement after traumatic experimental SCI, administrated no combined interventions, and reported the number of animals in the treatment and control group. Individual effect sizes were pooled using a random effects model. Details regarding the study design were extracted and impact of these on locomotor outcome was assessed by meta-regression. Missing data (reporting bias) was determined by Egger regression and Funnel-plotting. The primary study outcome assessed was improvement in locomotor function at the final time point of measurement. We included 49 studies (62 experiments, 1,164 animals) in the final analysis. The overall improvement in locomotor function after OEC transplantation, measured using the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) score, was 20.3% (95% CI 17.8-29.5). One missing study was imputed by trim and fill analysis, suggesting only slight publication bias and reducing the overall effect to a 19.2% improvement of locomotor activity. Dose-response ratio supports neurobiological plausibility. Studies were assessed using a 9-point item quality score, resulting in a median score of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-5). In conclusion, OEC transplantation exerts considerable beneficial effects on neurobehavioral recovery after traumatic experimental SCI. Publication bias was minimal and affirms the translational potential of efficacy, but safety cannot be adequately assessed. The data justify OECs as a cellular substrate to develop and optimize minimally invasive and safe cellular transplantation paradigms for the lesioned spinal cord embedded into state-of-the-art Phase I/II clinical trial design studies for human SCI.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell TransplantationDisease Models, AnimalOlfactory BulbPublication BiasSpinal Cord InjuriesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27244556
PMCPMC4886956
OpenAlexW2413947359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.