Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34463903›Full record

SynthesisStem cell reviews and reports2022

Bioactive Scaffolds in Stem Cell-Based Therapies for Myocardial Infarction: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Trials.

Kashif Khan, Karina Gasbarrino, Ibtisam Mahmoud, Line Dufresne, Stella S Daskalopoulou, Adel Schwertani, Renzo Cecere

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kashif KhanDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Karina GasbarrinoDivision of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ibtisam MahmoudMcConnell Resource Centre, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Line DufresneDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Stella S DaskalopoulouDivision of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Adel SchwertaniDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Renzo CecereDivision of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. renzo.cecere@muhc.mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3974-5136
McGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of bioactive scaffolds in conjunction with stem cell therapies for cardiac repair after a myocardial infarction shows significant promise for clinical translation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical trials that investigated the use of bioactive scaffolds to support stem cell-aided cardiac regeneration, in comparison to stem cell treatment alone. Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and grey literature were searched through April 23, 2020 and 60 articles were included in the final analysis. The overall effect size observed in scaffold and stem cell-treated small animals compared to stem cell-treated controls for ejection fraction (EF) was 7.98 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.36, 9.59] and for fractional shortening (FS) was 5.50 [95% CI: 4.35, 6.65] in small animal models. The largest improvements in EF and FS were observed when hydrogels were used (MD = 8.45 [95% CI: 6.46, 10.45] and MD = 5.76 [95% CI: 4.46, 7.05], respectively). Subgroup analysis revealed that cardiac progenitor cells had the largest effect size for FS, and was significant from pluripotent, mesenchymal and endothelial stem cell types. In large animal studies, the overall improvement of EF favoured the use of stem cell-embedded scaffolds compared to direct injection of cells (MD = 10.49 [95% CI: 6.30, 14.67]). Significant publication bias was present in the small animal trials for EF and FS. This study supports the use of bioactive scaffolds to aid in stem cell-based cardiac regeneration. Hydrogels should be further investigated in larger animal models for clinical translation.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionStem Cell TransplantationAnimalsHeartHydrogelsHydrogelsAnimalMeta-analysisScaffoldStem cellsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34463903
OpenAlexW3196388601

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.