Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28151049›Full record

SynthesisIslets2017

Effect of co-culture of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells with pancreatic islets on viability and function outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bianca Marmontel de Souza, Ana Paula Bouças, Fernanda Dos Santos de Oliveira, Karina Pires Reis, Patrícia Ziegelmann, Andrea Carla Bauer, Daisy Crispim

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Islets, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Bianca Marmontel de Souzaa Laboratory of Human Pancreatic Islet Biology, Endocrine Division , Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.
Ana Paula Bouçasa Laboratory of Human Pancreatic Islet Biology, Endocrine Division , Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.
Fernanda Dos Santos de Oliveirac Laboratory of Cell Differentiation, Experimental Research Center, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.
Karina Pires Reisa Laboratory of Human Pancreatic Islet Biology, Endocrine Division , Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.
Patrícia Ziegelmannd Statistics Department and Post-Graduation Program in Epidemiology , Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.
Andrea Carla Bauera Laboratory of Human Pancreatic Islet Biology, Endocrine Division , Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.
Daisy Crispima Laboratory of Human Pancreatic Islet Biology, Endocrine Division , Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre , Rio Grande do Sul , Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The maintenance of viable and functional pancreatic islets is crucial for successful islet transplantation from brain-dead donors. To overcome islet quality loss during culture, some studies have co-cultured islets with mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC). However, it is still uncertain if MSC-secreted factors are enough to improve islet quality or if a physical contact between MSCs and islets is needed. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the effect of different culture contact systems of islets with MSCs on viability and insulin secretion outcomes. Pubmed and Embase were searched. Twenty studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis and/or meta-analysis. For both outcomes, pooled weighted mean differences (WMD) between islet cultured alone (control group) and the co-culture condition were calculated. Viability mean was higher in islets co-cultured with MSCs compared with islet cultured alone [WMD = 18.08 (95% CI 12.59-23.57)]. The improvement in viability was higher in islets co-cultured in indirect or mixed contact with MSCs than in direct physical contact (P <0.001). Moreover, the mean of insulin stimulation index (ISI) was higher in islets from co-culture condition compared with islet cultured alone [WMD = 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-1.13)], independently of contact system. Results from the studies that were analyzed only qualitatively are in accordance with meta-analysis data. Co-culture of islets with MSCs has the potential for protecting islets from injury during culture period. Moreover, culture time appears to influence the beneficial effect of different methods of co-culture on viability and function of islets.

Indexed as

Coculture TechniquesAnimalsHumansInsulinInsulin SecretionIslets of LangerhansMesenchymal Stem CellsInsulinco-culturemesenchymal stem/stromal cellsPancreatic isletssystematic review and meta-analysisviability insulin secretion

Identifiers

PMID28151049
PMCPMC5345749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.